Defeatist Elitist

I think you're being a little deceptive here bro. Moulder will, according to averages, always have a .2 Speed lead on Natasha, barring Promotion bonuses. Natasha has a higher magic growth, but a lower base, and at level 20/20 (assuming you even get there), she'll only really have like 4 magic on him anyway (if they both go Bishop). She does destroy him in Luck, but it's not super important, especially when Moulder's very accurate anyway and has nice Con and Speed. As for Res, Natasha has more, but saying Moulder has crap for Res is pretty inaccurate, since it's waaaaaaaaay better than what most non Magic classes have. So yeah, I suggest Moulder, especially if you've never used him before. Plus, he has potentially amazing support options. Vannessa A/Colm B gives incredible bonuses. And yeah, Colm is pretty good too, he's pretty much a better dodging Joshua with very slightly weaker attacks, less HP and thief utility. And you can support him, etc, for pretty good benefits.

hey bro wussup dewd

Wait, who the fuck was Marth Koopa and why have I not heard of him? Do I need to go slit my wrists now for missing forum drama?

FRAME STRETCH!

You sir have never visited a British Columbian forest.

This post has been edited by California Mountain Snake: Today, 02:27 AM

Let's Dance to Joy Division - The Wombats

lol Mine was probably Ross. :(

Vorevorevorevorevore

VORE

Here on SF we like to make the game more interesting. :P Mekkah already played through with everybody's growths set to 0.

THEY WALKED IN LINE THEY WALKED IN LINE THEY WALKED IN LINE THEY WALKED IN LINE

Pretty much this. If I went through my life convinced that I had an imaginary friend who did things for me, I would likely be confined to an asylum or put on medication, because believing the impossible like that is generally considered to be insane, except, almost arbitrarily, in the case of a religion.

Vooooooooore

So much variety I can't even cover it. I mean, I could literally play Garry's Mod FOREVER.

Hawt stuff

I don't know if I'd call it even. As for not making any progress, the point is to help people understand.

Vore

Well that's kind of the point. It always comes down to "Well God just isn't governed by our reality" or "Well we just can't conceive of God", or something like that, which isn't a very good argument. At best its saying "God isn't really real", and at worst it's saying that we're all retarded.

Twinned Maximized Empowered Split Ray Enervation? :D

Come on man. He even TOLD you he was just fucking with you pretty early on. And you still went for it.

You haven't been on SF, so let me give you the rundown on this topic we've argued into the ground a billion times. It's basically the fact that the Christian God has so many contradictions in his description, and so many completely incorrect ideals associated with him, that he essentially cannot exist without massive re-imagining. For example, complete omnipotence is entirely impossible, as there will always be some things you cannot do (eg, creating a rock you cannot lift, creating an immovable object and an unstoppable force, etc). And on and on and on. Then there's the whole "If he does exist as they say he exists he's a massive asshole" thing.

OHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGODOHMYGOD! It's NAGLFARSLAYER! *explodes*

Anyhow, extraordinary evidence really just means real evidence. It just needs to be evidence that can be verified and actually supports the theory. Where did life come from? The current favorite hypothesis is abiogenesis, which while not fully explored or understood, seems at this time to be the most promising solution. If you would like to know more, I suggest beginning at Wikipedia and moving on to other sources. Of course my presuppositions will allow unbiased examination of the evidence. That is what Science is all about. Maybe you guys don't understand, but Scientists aren't really that interested in constantly quashing your beliefs, they are interested in the truth, and, by and large, will constantly strive towards it. Even I don't really care about you being wrong, I care about people understanding reality as best we can. As for the criteria for Extraordinary evidence, of course its reasonable, it is, as Crystal Shards said, what has gotten us as far as we are today. Anyhow, Black Hole point was addressed by Black Knight, so see below. Things might exist despite having no proof, but that is no excuse to just guess wildly. When we don't know something, it does not mean you are free to make up whatever you want to put in that place, it means WE DON'T KNOW. Now, if God just had no evidence to support his existence, then I would say that there simply was no reason to believe he existed. But as has been proven many times, there is actually evidence AGAINST the existence of God. Pretty much this. Science isn't going "Hey, this would be awesome, let's look for a way too prove it exists!", it's going "Wow, I wonder why this shit is happening? Let us search for an explanation."