SteveThaiBinh

No, but it doesn't seek to. As it is, it's a remarkably successful theory, explain things that were previously explainable only through divine intervention. How the ball got rolling is still where there's a missing link. As I understand it (and my knowledge could be a few years out of date) we know how you go from the big bang, star and planet formation, to an Earth with all the necessary ingredients for life. Then there's a gap, and we can explain how you go from the simplest life form all the way to human beings. In other words, science has explained nearly the entire process. It's possible that the lack of explanation of how the spark of life began can be interpreted as supporting the existance of God. More likely, though, it will be explained, and replicated, in the coming years. That's not 'faith' in science, rather it's belief that since we've explained nearly everything else the last little bit of the puzzle will soon be found.

Isn't Hugh Laurie a bit ... whimsical? I mean, does he have much serious acting under his belt? I can't imagine him as particularly ruthless or menacing.

Ask in the Spoilers forum, please.

This is part of the reason why many people in Europe (and maybe in parts of the US) are gobsmacked that creationism is now being pushed again as a serious idea. The major churches that we know accept evolution as at least possible, and not contradictory to church teachings. Creationism seems to be the preserve of a small number of very extreme Christian conservative sects, not in the mainstream of global Christianity.

It was a reward for Labour MPs. They had to put up with Blair supporting Bush's invasion of Iraq, so in return they were given a fox-hunting ban which upset the upper-class twits in the countryside. Who said the class war was dead?

Animal 'rights' is a difficult issue. I think gorillas and other primates deserve special protection because they are closely related to us - that is, if you accept evolution, of course. Whales are protected in order to avoid them dying out completely. If they were numerous, I don't think you could argue that they should be protected while other animals were hunted or farmed for food. Most (all?) whale species are endangered - that's why there's a hunting ban. Loss of an entire species is a disaster of an entirely different scale than simply hunting and killing, just as genocide is in a different league than murder. If overhunting wipes out the whales, that's a crime against all of us, not just a violation of animal rights.

Babe (the one with the pig), when the sheepdog Fly was watching her puppies being taken away from her.

"come in"? Now that's interesting. Where do you think they came from? Were you there first? Was there anyone there before you, perchance?

Are you happy to pay money and see the doctor quickly when others don't? It's a very unambitious view of society. I aspire to a world where everyone can get good treatment quickly, and am willing to pay to make it a reality.

Agreed. But every culture has a tradition of how children are to be raised, and some sort of marriage custom. Every culture has a way of organising families, its the foundation of society. No society, has ever had gay marriage and gay couples raising children. There are even cultures where men and women are exclusively homosexual until they are married, and even they don't have gay marriage. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I suppose what I'm saying is that there is no biologically-determined best kind of family for raising children, and as that is so, we should value all different kinds unless there is good reason not to. And there is now at least one culture where homosexual parents are raising children, and that's ours. Given the imperfect record of heterosexual parents in this regard, I'm keeping an open mind. It is not for homosexuals to persuade anyone else that they are good enough to be treated like heterosexuals. This entire discourse is assuming that homosexuals are somehow in deficit, and need to prove themselves fit to raise children. Standards of good parenting are the point here, not the sexual orientation of the parents. EDIT: Sorry, this really is getting badly off topic.

No. If you haven't encountered him before, then set Revan to Light Side female for maximum effect, and enjoy. It's just a few cameos, but the Carthaholics on this forum seemed pretty happy.

Monogamous marriage and nuclear families are synthetic inventions, not the result of natural process. They are part of Western culture, or rather they have been at times, and usually more in theory than in practice (how many pious married men have mistresses?) There are other cultures where these are not the norm at all.

Some Christian churches accept that evolution took place. I think that the Catholic Church is one, though I'm not certain about that. The idea is that evolution is the process by which God created life and man. This would be 'theistic evolution' I suppose, though I don't know if that's a term in common use. Some believe that God created the laws of physics, then set the universe in motion and allowed evolution to operate by its own laws. This is the 'watchmaker' idea. Others would argue that God was more directly involved in guiding the development of creatures to his liking, but with evolution still as the process by which this happened. However, evolution works fine without the intervention of a supernatural being, and since such a being is not necessary to explain the world, most scientists don't see a role for God in evolution.

I'm not aware of any major weaknesses. As with any theory, it's not proven or provable, it's merely the best explanation of the available evidence. What evidence have creationists put forwards against it?

Allowed by whom? Who has the right to deny this? On what grounds? For the state to justify denying gay couples the right to adopt, it would need to present fairly strong evidence that gay people are less able to raise children well then heterosexual people. I doubt that such evidence exists.

This all refers to your first conversation with Atton on Peragus, when you talked about whether Revan saved the Republic, and whether he was a he or a she. Bastila appears if you tell Atton that Revan was LS and male.

The next Indiana Jones? Is there going to be one? Who are they going to get to play Indy? Unfortunately, even if LucasArts were driven to bankruptcy, I don't think Lucas would lose his intellectual property rights to the Star Wars universe. As far as I know, these rights are inalienable.

If a huge number of gamers boycott LucasArts unless they make Kotor 3 well, it might have an effect. Might. And it's very unlikely to happen. Wise companies respond to their consumers. Is LucasArts a wise company? Of course, if you announce that you're never going to buy another LucasArts game, you're no longer a consumer. So why should they listen to you?

hint hint nudge nudge :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They would probably have to get special permission from LucasArts to do that. So it might happen, sometime in December.

If a gay couple wish to marry, and wish to call it marriage and not 'civil union', they should do so, and the state should recognise it. The state has no business enforcing one particular belief system over another, provided no-one's rights are harmed. I sincerely regret that some Christian conservatives believe that gays marrying somehow cheapens their own (heterosexual) marriages. It doesn't, in fact it's quite an extraordinary idea, and will soon be consigned to the dustbin of history, I hope.

An encounter with Griff wouldn't have made sense unless Mission was with you as an NPC. If you play Revan in Kotor 3, he might resurface. Maybe after fleeing Czerka he made it to the Outer Rim, and was captured by the amassing Gizka army.

I suppose Activision's technical support line still provides help to people struggling with the game, so in that sense, support is continuing. For what that's worth.

As flawed as Kotor 2 is, it's still one of the best games released this/last year. There simply isn't that much competition. So if you love games, you just have to buy it and turn a blind eye to the faults. The same will likely be true for Kotor 3, should it get made.

Of course, this is one reason why we never refer to 'translations' of the Quran, but to 'transliterations'. This is not because of any loss of literary or aesthetic merit, but because the Arabic original is held to be the literal word of God, and a translation therefore has lost too much of the original to be truly valid.

And yet the (translated) King James version of the Bible is often presented as a literary masterpiece in its own right. Personally, I never really felt that, though I'm not a great judge of such things.