venomai

Psychedelic music is still very popular among soft drug users and hippies. I think it really depends on the crowd. These days I only listen to a few select Beatles songs (Lucy, Strawberry Fields, Walrus, Tomorrow Never Knows). However, the soundtrack for the Across the Universe movie is really great, and some of those covers would be in my top 20. :)

Nice. :) I just got Google Sketchup a couple days ago, can't wait to try it out.

The only time this is true is if you are using paint and/or are doing a pixel signature. I always use JPG when I need to compress. JPG is lossy, 24-bit PNG isn't. 8-bit GIF/PNG isn't lossy up to 256 colours. Even a few more and quality loss is hard to notice. JPG should be used as a last resort. Depending on colours & dimensions, sometimes lossless formats will result in smaller file size than a lossy JPG. This isn't a great example, though. In fact, I would think that a slightly low quality JPG would be more realistic for a fake screenshot than a lossless PNG. Anyways, cool fake screenshot. :)

Nice shots. :) The dog - Everything is so soft, except for under the chin. Maybe you should soften it slightly? The kittens - I only like the middle one (with white). Looks really nice. I'm sure a lot of people on sxc.hu would want to use the dog. :wink:

[quote name="wildernessfreelancer ]An example : What happened before the Big Bang theory. No one knows for sure the answer to that. Well then' date=' isn't it possible that you can throw in "God theory" before the Big Bang theory? (Assuming that "God" is a singular, invisible super-entity.) It's a possibility.[/quote'] And what was before God? [quote name="wildernessfreelancer ]In fact' date=' based on BlueLancer's scientific evidence, I can go on to say that any religion that has statues representing "gods"/worship statues as "gods" are false, since there is scientific evidence to prove against their existence.[/quote'] I didn't find anything in BlueLancer's "scientific evidence" that disproves the existence of gods that were carved into statues. [quote name="wildernessfreelancer ]So' date=' let's try skipping to the hardest to debunk, shall we? Say, the concept of god being a singular, invisible super-entity, which is found in Christianity/Islam. The fact is.... science can't prove nor disprove this concept of god. We could then assume that it's a possibility.[/quote'] Currently, science can't prove/disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. We should assume that it too is another possibility. Really, we should assume that anything is possible. This is where belief comes in. We can assume that the FSM exists, but do we really want to believe it? Or, more importantly, why should we change our lives based on that belief/assumption? [quote name="wildernessfreelancer ]The thing is' date=' science can't prove what happened before the Big Bang, either. And, surprise, surprise... scientists never will.[/quote'] I'm sure they will, in time. Nobody knows what the future holds in store for us. The big bang is just a theory, and it may very well prove to be incorrect. Already new theories are coming out as possible alternatives to the classic Big Bang theory, such as the Cyclic model. [quote name="wildernessfreelancer ]By using their relation' date=' that both can never be proven with science, then it's possible to say: God created the Big Bang in the first place.[/quote'] Yes, it is possible to say that, as you are just theorizing. :) While we are on the subject of possibilities, it's possible that tomorrow the Flying Spaghetti Monster will materialize and destroy New York with His noodly appendages. Perhaps it will happen, perhaps it won't. :-w There's really no point in arguing on the existence of God with "reason" and "science". Let's go back to personal beliefs and experiences, which tend to make a lot more sense in a God debate.

I totally agree. 1,000 deaths per day in Congo due to hunger/disease.[1] 255,000 to 400,000 deaths (and counting) estimated from the Darfur conflicts.[2] 18,000 children die per day across the world due to hunger.[3] Nobody really wants to see these things. They would rather here about cars going through second floors, people suing God, etc. :) Commercial value is what news is all about, after all.

I think the OP is female. She said she didn't want to be a "barmaid". And yes, men do work as flight attendants. (straight men, too) :) Photojournalist? Archaeologist? Manager for a tour guide through the Amazon? A field agent for the government? Foreign intelligences and such. Be part of major motion pictures? It's a pretty casual atmosphere and a lot of the time you spend traveling.

I just checked out their forums.. what a stupid rule. I remember the old days of RHQ when it was called Runescape Central. The founder was a nice guy, he was a lot more reasonable. Most other boards I visit are about game programming, where I'm usually the youngest and least mature poster. :P Those boards are often very lenient.

You sound like you're a little too caught up with yourself to think about why people do these "terrible" things. Perhaps she doesn't feel safe sharing so much personal information and photos of herself with somebody she doesn't know that well. Or maybe she just doesn't like you. Have you even talked to her in person? :-s From your description, she sounds like a normal girl to me. Sorry to hear that, but like others have said, welcome to real life. Not everyone in this world is kind to everyone. Are you sure it wasn't intended as a harmless joke? :uhh:

Really? Show me the post where you address the matter correctly. :-s I hate to be a broken record, but I'll quote you again: Care to explain your logic?

Another question... If marijuana was legalized, do you think that would help relieve the pressure for youth to smoke cigarettes? Or would it only increase cigarette/tobacco smoking?

What would you say to smokers who are not yet addicted -- those that are just starting to try cigarettes? What do you think about smokers who "don't inhale"? Do you actually enjoy the smell of cigarettes, or does it simply "tickle your addction"? (hopefully that didn't come off as offensive) In your opinion, what would be an effective advertising campaign to turn youth off wanting to try cigarettes? Do you smoke hookah regularly? If so, how does it compare to cigarettes?

You must have misread the chart. It says that, of the 16% of the people who have no religion, 8% of them are theistic. We can assume that the other 8% are atheistic. In any case, all 16% of them are non-religious. Based on his source, BlueLancer was correct in stating: How does Christianity gain from an increase in non-religious beliefs?

Of course. :) But we are more advanced than the early civilizations. Science tells us that oxygen, water, chemical reactions, the atmosphere, etc. all contribute to life on Earth. Sunlight and solar energy does play a role, albeit not the only role. This seems more accurate than the idea of the Sun as God. But with this, you start to lose the meaning of the word "God". When God is everything and anything, it is no longer something special, since we are all God as well. When you get this general, I think the term God can be sort of misleading. :lol:

Heh, clever. :) You shouldn't be so concerned with minor spam/wit in a religious debate, it often helps ease the tension. Your post is spam aswell, and doesn't contribute to the debate. It would have been much better suited in a PM. :-s What makes you think the sun "gave" us life? The sun is only one of the many contributing factors for life on Earth -- let alone human life on Earth.

I think you're misunderstanding the point of a "religious debate". Most of us aren't trying to prove God through scientific means. Rather, we are voicing our opinions and doing our best to get others to agree with us. Religious debates help broaden your knowledge and open your mind to different viewpoints. :) I feel more enlightened every time I participate in one.

Nope, not once at all. Mind giving me one of your personal examples? Have you ever heard of out of body experiences? It's said to be one of the most spiritually enlightening states that you can experience. I've only just gotten interested in OBEs, so I'm still extremely skeptical, but some of the material I've read so far has been really fascinating.

I agree. :) A few days ago I bought a book called Adventures Beyond the Body by William Buhlman. It's taught me a lot of new things about spirituality, and I've only just started reading it. Before that, I was strictly atheist, and now I'm beginning to question myself. :-k

My dear venomai, it's creators all the way down! I love the idea of turtles all the way down when it comes to Gods and higher forces, but we are talking about monotheism here. The original statement was about the Judeo-Christian God (one creator).

Don't rely so much on tutorials for every aspect of your art. If an image is very pixelated then it's most likely too damaged to work with. I'd say repaint. :? Depends on what you mean by "realistic". If you want hyper-realism, you'll want to work at a huge resolution so you can add every detail. If you just mean something that looks like trees, even if it means impressionism, then it truly depends on your own style. Take a look at other artists to see how they adapt their style to paint vegetation realistically. http://saimain.deviantart.com/art/Forsaken-44543434 http://azhrarn.deviantart.com/art/Summe ... et-6857947 http://mactinz.deviantart.com/art/What-s-That-70955868 http://sleepar.deviantart.com/art/Girl- ... t-50145611 Most artists tend to draw leaves as dashes and blobs of colour. For a beginner, I wouldn't recommend painting & detailing each individual leaf. Before you go on to that you should master the more important concepts of digital painting. You should also look into texturing and texture brushes. They can be of big help when you're painting vegetation. The article here has a few good links to textures... http://news.deviantart.com/article/35241/ Yea, but it won't do much. Also, the quality will go back to (almost) normal when you shrink it back to the original state. I'd just choose one resolution and stick with it until the end. The problem with increasing the size midstream is that everything you paint thereafter will appear sharper/different than the stuff underneath it.

Mathematically speaking, the odds that there isn't other [intelligient] life in the universe are so slim that it would be incredibly hard to believe that we're alone, unless there was some unknown reason for it. Here's an interesting article on the (mathematical) probabilities of other life-bearing planets existing in the universe. http://www.krysstal.com/extrlife.html

I agree. :? I've got Flow bindings, the kind you snap on. Very nice if you're just a casual boarder. My board & boots are hand-me-downs, a couple years old, but they fit and work well so I don't really care much about the brand name. :) I've been boarding for a few years now. Great sport.

This isn't true. Hallucinations, especially those related to religion and spirituality, can occur in a wide variety of healthy individuals. Take a look at hypnagogic states, psychedelic drugs and out of body experiences for more info.

You're starting to sound like a Flat Earth believer, talking about doctored photos of Pluto. :lol: Have you ever seen, felt, or touched God? How can you be so sure that God had any influence on the Bible? Personally, I think the modern scientific community is a lot easier (and more logical) to trust than a group of Jesus' disciples who lived thousands of years ago.

An axis is a point of reference, as is the unit itself. You keep avoiding the "origin". If we graphed a sine function, what would be its origin? I'm open to the idea that all measurable things need an origin, but so far nobody has explained why. BCE/CE notation was created before the big bang theory existed. At the time, they thought that the universe was less than 10,000 years old. Why would they bother counting from the start of the universe? It makes a lot more sense to count from the start of human life, or in the case of BCE/CE notation, the start of the "common era" (whatever that is). Absolute zero is a reference point that humans chose for the scale. Kelvin, the scale itself, does not originate from anything, it is merely an abstract system of measurement created by humans in which all kelvins are relative to absolute zero. The sine graph was only shown as an example of how something can be "infinite" with no specific point of origin. It's not meant to graph time and/or the universe. :-s The new cyclic model theories do not break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. See here, one of the questions near the bottom: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~stein ... thors.html Same here. I don't believe either theory very strongly right now, but I have an easier time understanding the cyclic model. Answer me this simple question: What created the creator? If we assume that the force/being has "always existed" -- then why can't we apply that same logic to our universe?