Chase

Noble huh? I'll take it? I think in my case something like "Picture-esque" is more appropriate (seeing as my shameless WDYLL posts garner a significant portion of my rep....)

Generation 1: Pokemon is officially "a thing" Generation 2: There's more Pokemon than "the original 151" Generation 3: Formes are introduced (Deoxys) Generation 4: Evolutions are given to previous generation evolution lines Generation 5: Fusion Pokemon are "a thing" Generation 6: Mega Evolution is "a thing" The game changes forever every time a new generation of Pokemon is released.

I personally think it was only a matter of time. There can't be any feasible way to assume that single-scale Zygarde is more powerful than it's Gundam-esque counterpart or even the existent version. I think that would be very disappointing.

I think the blob and the flat scale is the same thing. Scalegarde > GardeDog (ha) > Zygarde ----> Zygarde Primal/Mega. This would make Zygarde like a Pokemon with two evolutions and a Mega Evolution. Other Pokemon with this chain include all of the starters, Gardevoir, Gallade, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised either, but I don't think hand turrets are an immediately necessary step, regardless of "progress" being made now or in the near future, replacing lost arms with robotic ones controlled by the nervous system does already happen, and that improves medical condition, which I said I was okay with.

Nowhere in that statement did I even talk about robotics. Do you mean to say that replacing your hand for a turret is already a thing? If so, my argument is that there is no immediate need for such appendage. Just because it may or may not already exist, there's not a need for it to be in existence.

I actually don't have a problem with metallic enhancements that rectify medical predicaments - that would only do a whole lot of good for people that would normally struggle to live. My objection comes with stupid shit like making every one have angel wings and guns for arms. We're not quite at a point where that's even remotely needed today.

It's almost like calling MYSELF a waifu.

#ThanksObama

Mega evolutions have obviously allowed Pokemon such as Pinsir, Glalie, Camerupt, Banette, Charizard Lopunny, and Audino to break tier thresholds and find more reliable use in more Pokemon. Mega evolutions are a love letter to the fans of certain Pokemon such as Tyranitar, Garchomp, Lucario, Blaziken, and half the starters at this point in time. Megas are a polarizing aspect of the meta-game, redrawing lines and forcing players to adapt to gameplay Megas are by nature a focal point of any team, due to taking up one slot Primal evolutions are pushing the threshold of absolute power and Mega Rayquaza is absolutely ridiculous. I guess long story short, I wasn't exactly thrilled about Mega Evolution and I do find it to be a pretty major change with a very large margin of influence on the gameplay - but as a Pokemon fan, I can definitely see the positives. It's just a new chapter of Pokemon.

I personally would want to keep the contest going to give those with a reasonable chance a shot of breaking in - but we're not seeing an equal commitment from the participants in order to make this happen. For those on the bottom, if we call it now, we can actually HAVE the Invitational tournament too. We may not be able to really sell it if it's just 3 people...you guys catch my drift? Moving it up would benefit the top and bottom of the field. Leaving the season as is would help the middle of the field.

I've already made the argument that damnation is done by our OWN hands, you're still pulling that card. We've hit a to-be-expected impasse though. Nobody wants to humble themselves. Ever. Humanity can't be wrong, right? If your belief is that there is no God. Fine > that's your choice too. Don't try to convince me of the same unless you have a more convincing argument than I do. Objective morals exist though. That's not even negotiable or debatable. Your choice to believe in them though! God made His people exactly how He wanted them too, and honestly, I find it appalling that anyone can misconstrue constant re-negotiation, pursuit, and ultimately martyrdom as a statement of non-worth. That's on the contrary a show of worth to God than it is the opposite.

I'm only using common terms there. It's true that God possesses both paternal AND maternal traits. I just don't want the discussion to get even more off topic than it already is.

We haven't done any empirical studies on God either - and proving His existence isn't really the point of believing in Him. People don't believe in a God because the evidence for their being one is 100 percent there. What's appalling, is that there are scientists who devote their whole lives to disproving the "God problem" - where on the other side there are theists who do their best to live as they see beneficial to the world around them. In these cases, I would be willing to believe the theist lives a happier and more meaningful life. Why? There simply isn't any evidence of a total lack of God either - which certainly helps theists more than believing in something that is quite obviously non-existent. --- The evidence is in our mathematical constants. - Adjusting the Gravitational Constant means that our universe will either have expanded too fast and not allowed the formation of stars, meaning there was no way life could be sustained, or the universe would collapse on itself for the same result. No life. - The Cosmological Constant is the driving force behind universal expansion. Changing -it's- value causes the universe to expand too fast or too slowly - again causing life to cease. Those are just the tip of the iceberg. You have the masses of a proton, you have the speed of light, you have Hubble's Constant, and so on and so forth - consisting of numbers that absolutely can't be changed in order for life to exist. Mathematical constants show us that life sustaining universes absolutely HAVE to be identical to ours or else they aren't sustaining life. Our ability to live is literally sitting on a razor's edge. This makes it highly unlikely that there are other universes out there with different variables and life sustaining. In fact, it makes it nearly impossible. If the universe is completely composed of space, time, and matter like ours is - and uses the same math - it also most likely operates under the same laws of physics. This is how the multiverse is incredibly unlikely because the multiverse would need to produce a near exact replica of THIS universe to sustain life. Is humbling Oneself into becoming a Human, and DYING not enough benevolence for you? The way I see it, God loves us so much he didn't go for the second flood and drown us all > and tried everything to the point of unnecessary DEATH for His creation to choose Him. He didn't want us to be separated from Him so much that he DIED for us. As far as human understanding goes > there's no coming back from death. You don't GET your lost loved ones back. > That's what makes the fact that we can get JESUS back so remarkable. Even if I were to cast away my beliefs and say, you know what God? You know I'm a sinner and that I'm going to hell, I don't NEED you.", that doesn't change the fact that He DIED for me anyway. If you are going to choose Jesus, you shouldn't choose it because "WOOHOO ETERNAL LIFE BITCHES."......you should choose Him because He knows you're going to fuck up.........and He died for you anyway. Here, it's a case of God did everything that was sufficient for humanity - and it's on said humanity to accept the olive branch. To not do so, is most definitely their choice. --- I've been called callous before > but yeah. God knows who's going to take his offer and who isn't, and he's kind enough to allow those to make the choice. It's not a cop out, it's the breaking point and major crossroad every believer faces. "God, I don't want to suffer. -If- you can save me, please do so." or "God, I don't think you can and therefore I'm not going to give myself up to you unless you show me something." It's the people that reject the most obvious and heartfelt sacrifices and displays of His mercy, that don't -get- His mercy. Not the people that don't deserve it > because that would be all of us.

You can't say the multiverse is eternal because it's been scientifically proven that whether or universe is one of many or all alone - it had to have to have had a beginning. You would have to disprove multiple scientific developments and debunk the 2nd law of thermodynamics in order to make the argument that the multiverse is eternal. Until that's happened, you can't really say the Multiverse and God are one of the same without being ignorant of discovery. I'm not that oblivious. There is most definitely a possible way to separate a temporal universe from an eternal Creator. It's in the build-up of each. Time is observable. Timelessness isn't. Matter is observable. Immateriality isn't. Space is observable, Non-space is something Humans have yet to encounter and thus isn't observable. God can't be confined to the laws of Physics like the universe can if He isn't composed of the same qualities of the universe. By that reasoning, God's in a special category because of what His build-up is and the Kalam cosmological argument isn't threatened by an eternal first cause that doesn't apply to the laws. Evil is the corruption of good and the consequence of bad decisions. I'm not sure I can answer it without at the very least acknowledging Free Will as an integral part of why Evil exists - but it may not be the case if the question were more specific. For example, a good child that chooses to cause harm to another child is now - at least in that moment, a corrupted good child. Just because the argument sounds like a cop-out doesn't necessarily make the argument defunct. I don't care if you don't like that, because I wouldn't expect anyone to like humbling themselves. However - it doesn't really absolve the fact that we pick our poisons willingly. You can't have the ability of choice, not call it a broken fixture of the creation of Humanity, and then blame God for the bad in the world.

I may have been forgotten - but it's okay. These are still really cool to look at.

@ Eviora - that [Free Will when told the right answer] - is actually the example that is made in the story of "the Fall" God creates Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden God tells the first couple not to eat from a specific tree and that they can eat anything else. Eve is deceived by a second opinion (the serpent) and Adam freely chooses to eat from the tree anyway - even though they WERE told the right answer. On the matter of "How did God come to be" - He's eternal because of what I had to address in the Kalam argument. In order for God to have existed eternally, he can't be made of the things that were made at the time the Universe began (Space, Time, Matter) - and because you can't scientifically prove anything specifically pertaining to God - God being an uncaused cause is completely viable and is supported by one piece of historical evidence in the book of Genesis. If God consisted of Space, or Time, or Matter, there is absolutely NO way He's able to have existed forever - as those things haven't existed forever. However, if he's as I argued. space-less, time-less, immaterial, and uncaused, and immensely powerful....then it's completely feasible that God be eternal. If God is timeless, he has no beginning, and if God has no beginning, he doesn't need to have a cause. God differs from the universe we KNOW exists here because we know the current universe is slowly losing energy. There is no scientific evidence or law that would propose God is losing energy at this point in time. The Problem with Evil has a lot of questions tied to it. Which questions would you like me to field? @ Gaunt No. We know for a fact that other animals on our planet besides Humans existed - and yet we were crafted "in the image" of God. In the event of an extraterrestrial being existing, hey can without making that statement null. Remember, it's highly reasonable - even for the evangelical Christian - to assume the writer of Genesis was using peripherals and not a globe when writing the manuscript. At this point in time, there was no evidence at all that there was anything beyond Earth's atmosphere - and there's still not anything out there but science fiction that suggests Aliens do indeed exist at this point. If they do - it's not going to be faith-shaking in the slightest and doesn't contradict biblical doctrine. As to how did Christianity expand? That much can be historically explained. The disciples are among the 500+ "Resurrection witnesses" after they too discover the body to have gone missing -AND- the Christ appears to them multiple times. They then go to Jerusalem on request and then begin to preach as the bearers of the Christian narrative. Some time later, a man named Saul is on his way to Damascus - to KILL these Christian converts no less - and experiences a Jesus appearance that blinds him for a while. That man would regain his sight as the Apostle Paul - and Paul goes around all over the Middle East and European world at the time spreading the gospel and establishing Gentile churches. Missionaries like Paul and Apollo brought Christianity out of the confines of being only for a certain people. @ Sevonic Thank you for sharing your testimony. I am sorry that life has been difficult for you and you are a strong and bright individual. You are -not- however, any form of atheist if you hold that the possibility for a God is present. You are indeed a skeptic - but not an atheist. The other thing I got for you is that manuscripts are being found closer and closer to the Resurrection that we're not really talking about "several" decades anymore. You are on point about Judaism and you are correct in that the Bible was written by man. Those weren't really in contention in this thread to begin with.

OmegaRa1der

Gaunt - There are scholars who propose that they hold an atheistic perspective and yet still fulfill the scholarly duty to historical evidence. Just because you claim to be an atheist, doesn't mean you get a free pass of making an argument without actually interacting with the text. It's interesting - because it's almost like atheists on the popular level are afraid the book might "change" them if they read it. If it were simply a matter of time constraints - you could simply say "I'll get around to it someday - but for now I don't know if the Bible can be considered as a reliable historical document." To outright hold the claim that you are an atheist however - should prepare you for a bit of pushing from the opposing side as you are making an equally ground-breaking claim in that God does NOT exist as opposed to not "knowing" if God exists or lacking faith either way. Now for your responses: 1 - I believe there should be traces of grave robbery because people find looted tombs and pyramids all the time and know for a fact that the tomb was raided and pillaged. In fact, the Egyptians were some of the earliest examples of discovered grave robbery sites - with their civilization predating the Crucifixion by nearly 4 millennia. If someone can discover a crime scene from 3500 B.C., it shouldn't be too far a stretch to find a tomb in Jerusalem that is dated somewhere less than 2 thousand years ago in the past. Furthermore, there are traces and documents coming increasingly closer to the Crucifixion providing a narrative of Resurrection. On the Resurrection argument, there is new emerging pieces of historical documents supporting it's hypothesis. The only difference between King Tut and Jesus is that Jesus wasn't buried with possessions - meaning there's only one thing to steal. 2. So, you're going to try and defend your position by dismissing two of my questions - and not even inquire about this question? You're not getting anywhere fast with this passive hole-punching. 3. Jesus' disciples actually fled from Roman authority and several of them denounced Jesus publicly to avoid suspicion being drawn to them - such as St. Peter - the "Rock" on which Christ built his Church......three times. This kind of excerpt from the Gospels is called "embarrassing testimony" and provides no positive spin on the Christ narrative whatsoever. In the Gospel, not only does Peter deny Christ three times, he also tries to assure Jesus that He wouldn't be let by the disciples to die in a misunderstanding of how Christ was to save the world - resulting in the Messiah saying "Get behind me, Satan!" ... Also, it's not the disciples who allegedly found the tomb - but the faithful women. Women being the finders of the empty tomb instead during a time period of imbalance between the genders does nothing for Christianity - unless it's the truth. Embarrassing testimony is found all over the Old Testament as well, such as Moses killing a man in Egypt, King David stealing Uriah's wife, and Gideon the Judge being doubtful and fearful for his ability to lead Israel. The frequency of such testimony does nothing to help the Biblical narrative except confirm it by throwing in all details, including the ugly ones. This is where I take issue with the "Disciples wanted to spread His word." supposition.They just watched their supposed Messiah beaten and executed in the most shameful way possible. There was no hope, victory, or pride in the upper room for the entire weekend He was gone. They even had to go see the tomb for themselves when Mary Magdalene returned with the news out of disbelief. In the event of a serious answer, you again dismissed the question, making you oh-for-three and hardly credible. Long story short - You have to be able to bear the burden of proof to defend your own claims, not just blow darts at other people's. There is no historical proof of Jesus being stolen away - just logical deduction by saying "Grave robberies have happened before, therefore, someone stole Jesus away." without any evidence to support the claim. --- The difference between God and the Multiverse theory is that one provides sufficient answers for all phenomena while the other is merely a possible explanation that has yet to be confirmed by empirical science. You shouldn't be looking for religion if you're looking for a 100% transparent God. No God that does exist operates that way to my knowledge, and if they did, that being would be under heavy scrutiny as Christianity is and debunked when any evidence is found to refute the hypothesis. The process of elimination is a strategy that does exactly as it reads - ELIMINATES possibilities. It's taking a look at the evidence we DO have and saying. "Okay, based off of what we know - these don't work." The result is a stalemate that no side has an edge on. On one side however, you have people who are able to integrate what they know about God into new discoveries and they are able to hold logical discourse about a "supernatural" being. On the other, you have a desperate struggle to find as many scientific mannerisms as possible to shut down the opposing view. The difference truly is picking one that makes the most sense. Not complete sense.

Kanto: Favorite: Lorelei. - For many, Lorelei was the tone setter for the Elite Four experiences to come. We were used to gym trainers and experience gets and running to the safety of the Pokemon Center whenever we needed heals and whatnot - but when you enter a chamber with just the confident Lorelei and....well, nothing else. You know you were in for the gauntlet. Lorelei thus is the most memorable Kanto representative in a positive manner. Least Favorite: Lance. - His story of ascent is cute in all - but I actually liked Bruno more than I did Lance. The major issue with Lance though is the severe lack of Dragon types available. Johto: Favorite: Karen. - Karen pretty much spits at the idea of Smogon tiers and liking a Pokemon because it's viable competitively alone. I love that shit, man. Least Favorite: Bruno. - This guy...didn't progress at all. Why did he make a comeback? -THIS- is where he fouled out with me. Hoenn: Favorite: Sydney. - Sydney used a lot of interesting Dark types throughout the various iterations of 3rd gen games.He's just...cool. Least Favorite: Phoebe. - Hoenn didn't have enough Ghost types and this Elite Four member had to deal with it. Banette is not a good Pokemon without a Mega Stone. Sinnoh: Didn't play. Favorite would have to be Flint due to story interaction. Unova Favorite: Marshal - Marshal is like Bruno but actually involved with the story instead of passive and yet...recurring. Marshal was what Bruno could have been. Least Favorite: Caitlin - Least Favorite type of the 4. Good Character and recurring from Gen 4 make it just a necessary denotion and nothing more here. Kalos: Favorite: Siebold - Siebold is a chef. His art is the kind of art that has a short shelf life - and while he is adamant about his own position. So am I. This guy is rad. Least Favorite: Drasna - Drasna's just lacking in substance. Wikstrom at the very least represented the culture with honor. Again, only because I have to pick a least favorite.

My favorite Mega-Evolution has quickly become Mega Camerupt. Camerupt's ability Sheer Force allows it to become a fearsome wallbreaker with decent enough bulk to take a hit and dish out a KO. Other good ones are the Charizard variants, Gardevoir, Gallade, Lucario, Glalie, and Banette.

Hi! I just wanted to stop by, appreciate your work because it's fantastic, and request a signature using this picture of Yuuki Asuna from Sword Art Online I'm not the artist here - so you do you. Odds are I'm going to to like it.

FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS week one: Mississippi State plays Western Michigan on the road in Kalamazoo. WMU has one of the toughest schedules in the country - and is in great position to beat -someone-. Chris Pedersen and his Washington Huskies are going to the place that Pederson formerly put on the map. Boise State.