@calvinsora : This is again only showing variation within humans,not from a human to a different organism,much like the dog case these are only mild changes in size and color,not a change in species at all.There has yet to be a (lasting) mutation for the better (or at all) among the human race and any mutations are only things like..missing/extra fingers/toes etc. that humans already have,nothing that hasn't already been allowed within human dna.Dinosaurs didn't necessarily go into extinction because of evolution,there are many species (ie the dodo bird) that went into extinction due to climate change,low natural resources,or hunting/poaching..none of the animals on the endangered/extinct list today are so because of an evolutionary ''dead end'' .There is also various evidence showing dinosaurs might have only recently died out (if at all) like a report that 2 cattle herders in ''the wild west'' claimed to have seen a giant flying reptillian and hunted it down for a trophy..or even more recently in 1977 when a comercial Japanese fishing vessel caught a roughly only 10-month old carcass of a creature almost IDENTICAL to the Plesiosaur there is a hefty chance dinosaurs didn't die out millions or even thousands of years ago..they could even live today (especially since there are MANY undeveloped rainforests and jungles in South America,Africa,etc. where a very large creature could EASILY hide for centuries undiscovered).
@calvinsora : The problem with saying dog breeding is proving evolution is that we haven't invented a new species,no matter what differences there are there hasn't been one breeding that has turned a dog into anything other than a dog,any changes have only been variations already planned and allowed in said species,there are already genes and factors in the dogs dna that allow variations within species but not within changing from one species to another...it is also a massive leap to compare only breeding within a species with the massive changes made within ''changing'' from one species to another.Also comes in the fact that if evolution is rapid how come we don't see it today? So far (without human interference) we haven't seen any dramatic changes in mutation that have stuck with the species.In the fairly long amount of time that evolution has been considered possible we should've seen many other major leaps in species if evolution is as rapid as you say it is.Even changes for the positive would show a transitional form which we again haven't seen yet,especially considering the thousands-to-millions of fossils we should see since every animal in that species is evolving along the same lines we should have AT LEAST some odd hundred fossils showing transitions for the positive in evolution which we again haven't found any doing so.
@MarcusVOG : It is refreshing that you don't think of evolution as fact,whether people believe in it or not it is not proven scientific law,in order for it to be so it would have to have be replicated and examined a considerable number of times which is obviously impossible.And even how much evidence ''proves'' evolution (I personally consider it unlikely that evolution is true because the fact that there have been no fossils discovered that have ''proven'' evolution completely at all and the fact that if this process were done over millions of years that the changes wouldn't be developing fast enough to supply for immediate-change needs like from sea creature to land creature or crawler,to walker,to flyer,etc. and that mutations have always shown (since we could examine them) to prove to give NEGATIVE features the the mutated creature,not positive features and certainly not enough to develop into a new species for the better and the fact that we are basing every single ''link'' solely on animals we see today ((because if there were these ''links'' between they shouldn't be around today existing with said ''evolved'' animal) so even evolution itself is technically ''religion'' since it is based on a considerable amount of faith and trust.
@Nodashi : While I personally don't have any interest in the least in playing Catherine (personally I find it a bit strange to get sexual satisfaction from playing a video game..I find it only a stylized form of p#rnography) I think it is only an example of the common uinderlying problem with most gamers (and I doubt many will like this).Most gamers have a sense of the inferiority and that they need to ''prove'' that video games can be ''bad A##'' also since they think (subconsciously or not) that gaming is looked down upon as nerdy,wimpy,or child's play.That is why most gamers embrace what they consider ''hardcore'' bloody and gory/sex filled games with so much enthusiasm yet give cynical remarks at most titles that aren't branded with an m-rating.That is why you so often see the maturity complex with gamers acting as though only titles that brand a mature rating are actually ''mature''.There is truly only one reason for portraying extremely sexual situations in video games... as casual p#rn#graphy.....because if as some would portray adults would turn to a developers take on infidelity (or lack there-of) for advice for their life obviously have problems much more urgent than that.
''As it turns out, Christian mythology is ripe for video game treatment.'' ....wow,they seriously just said that? Anyways....I find it sad that I literally haven't played ONE ''Christian'' game that I even mildly enjoyed and held on par with sub-standard mediocre games...most of that is lack of creativity on ''Christian'' game developers standpoints..solely copying successful features and doing a horrible job of copying. I think it would be fine...and even great for games (such as El Shaddai) to portray Christian viewpoints..and while they don't necessarily have to comply with the e-rating developers who themselves aren't ''religious'' should have respect for Christianity...for example not adding things in that blatantly go against Christianity itself with obviously controversial topics for Christians.While I don't think it is a bad idea to bring spirituality and religion into games it should be handled with respect to the source material.
@ davedrastic : Oh yes...more 3rd party support than all of Nintendo's consoles in the past 10 years combined and graphics/power that out-weigh the competitors (and face it...1080p isn't even passable so it is not like wii-u will be immediately outdates) are always total signs of failure....l
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious how people stretch time? The same 6 months people complained about being so long until major titles come out is now ''just 6 months!'' an incredibly short amount of time for a new peripheral and a ''white flag''..............
@ shoota28 : That's not the point...multiplayer used to be free as it should be.If things continue like they are now you will have to pay per game save each time you save your game...but it would be optional as you could go through the entire game in one burst.Sounds crazy now but its one step after another.....
Couldn't agree more! Don't you remember back in the good old days when customers were valued and appreciated for buying the game to begin with? Now you are only appreciated once you buy said game,pay for dlc,pre-order from a certain store,and get bonus online content etc. to be truly appreciated by them.The way dlc SHOULD be handled is to have a full and complete game without dlc even coming up,then once new ideas and themes are thought up (too small to make a sequel for) dlc expansions come out.I am starting to think gaming might have been better off without ANY online to avoid dlc,expansions,and the other online money-pits that are becoming the r@pe of the gaming world.
moviequest14's comments