Greatsilverwyrm

I always say something exists until proven false. A very good opinion to have : If by very good you mean.. y'know.. very bad. I believe that a death fairy exists who will give me $1,000,00 in cash for every person I shoot in the head. This fairy will also make it so nobody will ever know I shot anybody so I'll get away with it! Can you see how bad that opinion can be? Can you prove it false? If you can't, then how do you know are you so sure that won't happen? No, I can't prove it false. Can you prove false that we're all actually elaborate sock puppets manipulated by giant radioactive space hamsters? No? Then why don't you assume that it's true and base your actions upon that idea? How about acid will actually make you grow taller, regardless of what it does to other materials? No? Why not drink some acid, then? I mean, seriously? Am I in bizarro-world? Why the hell would you assume something is true unless proven false? Would you want to be put on trial that way? [/hide] How do you know that we're not all "elaborate sock puppets manipulated by giant radioactive space hamsters?" What if we are? Doesn't make sense of course, since you're really not perspective, but who knows, it's a universe we don't understand, anything could be, humans are not the whole big brain of the universe. Doesn't matter if it sounds silly. What sounds silly is a box that projects images, kind of like another dimension in a box, doesn't it? It did back in the day. Now it's TV. How do I know? I don't know for absolute certain, obviously, but I can be reasonably sure. Especially since I've seen zero credible objective evidence which would lead me to believe we're puppets of any kind, let alone sock puppets controlled by space hamsters. And no, that doesn't sound silly at all. Because we know such a thing exists. Oh, ok, so my argument is somehow invalid because I used an italicized word? Don't you have any better responses than that?

That's not bad because this angel is not proven false, it is bad because you will kill people for money. Believing that something is true until it's proven false means that you don't deny anything, not that you arrange your live as if it exists. My friend had an experience which is a perfect example of how his senses and his logic deceived him: As his vision is not too good, he wears glasses most of the time. These glasses have been approved by doctors and everything, and my friend believed that he saw the world as other people see it. One day, he got a new examination, and discovered that he had been wearing the wrong type of glasses his whole life. He got the right type of glasses, and suddenly, his vision was a lot clearer. He asked himself: "Whoa! Has the world always looked like this?" Perhaps I should clarify. I don't think we should assume things are false until proven true, because really you can't prove anything is 100% without a shadow of a doubt true. I do think though that we shouldn't assume things are true until we've been shown credible objective evidence for them. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a troll. Cute picture though, it really helps your argument.

I actually really like the new nanos. What don't you folks like about it?

Do you guys read? They're just testing the particle streams today. The collisions won't take place until mid-october. Anything that would "destroy the world" would happen then.

If you could point me to some I'd read it sometime, but it would be with the most skeptic of eyes. I know lots of people supposedly see ghosts, but it's can usually be explained in other ways. it can almost always be explained, yes. That's why I like Ghost Hunters, they don't say a place is haunted unless the really can't explain it. 2 of them are plumbers, so they have explained A LOT by looking at a house's waterworks. When they say somewhere is haunted, it definitely means something coming from them. (again, unlike Most Haunted -.- ) As I said, 99% of their stuff is EVPs.

That was probably a lucid dream.

No, I don't see how that opinion is bad to have. What you're showing is a good sign of a mental problem. Get that checked out asap. I agree that the reductio ad absurdum was a bad route to go down, but there's no way you can actually agree that any claim should just be believed on faith until it's been proven false. Aw, but I love reductio ad absurdum..

I always say something exists until proven false. A very good opinion to have : If by very good you mean.. y'know.. very bad. I believe that a death fairy exists who will give me $1,000,00 in cash for every person I shoot in the head. This fairy will also make it so nobody will ever know I shot anybody so I'll get away with it! Can you see how bad that opinion can be? [/hide] Can you prove it false? If you can't, then how do you know are you so sure that won't happen? No, I can't prove it false. Can you prove false that we're all actually elaborate sock puppets manipulated by giant radioactive space hamsters? No? Then why don't you assume that it's true and base your actions upon that idea? How about acid will actually make you grow taller, regardless of what it does to other materials? No? Why not drink some acid, then? I mean, seriously? Am I in bizarro-world? Why the hell would you assume something is true unless proven false? Would you want to be put on trial that way?

I don't mean to be a jerk about the brushes or whatever. I just hate it when people use them instead of their own work, instead of using them as a tool to enhance their own work.

Ok, don't go that far yet. Let's discover the God particle first before we get inventing ways to use it. Bah; stop calling it the "god particle". It doesn't even make any sense.

Exactly. I doubt that you did the trees, somehow. And are the people supposed to be ghosts or something? :# Otherwise, even if you don't want them to attract attention, they are too pale. I'm pretty sure the foliage is brushes. That's usually fine, but in this case it really doesn't seem like you did a lot, and what you did could be a lot better in my opinion. Why are brushes usually fine? It's like renders, the only difference between using brushes/renders and outright stealing somebody elses work is that it's not (usually) illiegal. People need to just do their own work. [/hide] Oh sure, and you can't use these forums either; you aren't the founder and creator of the software after all. And you can't use Photoshop/Gimp, they're not your applications. Same with your computer, the internet or almost everything else for that matter. People need to just do their own work. There's a very large difference between, for instance, using someone's camera, and using someone's pictures. Photoshop doesn't do the work for you, it's a tool that allows you to do the work. Most people use brushes not as a tool, but as a stamp. Why draw trees when you have a tree brush? Why draw/model a sword when you can use a sword render? Exactly. I doubt that you did the trees, somehow. And are the people supposed to be ghosts or something? :# Otherwise, even if you don't want them to attract attention, they are too pale. I'm pretty sure the foliage is brushes. That's usually fine, but in this case it really doesn't seem like you did a lot, and what you did could be a lot better in my opinion. Why are brushes usually fine? It's like renders, the only difference between using brushes/renders and outright stealing somebody elses work is that it's not (usually) illiegal. People need to just do their own work. Oh sure, and you can't use these forums either; you aren't the founder and creator of the software after all. And you can't use Photoshop/Gimp, they're not your applications. Same with your computer, the internet or almost everything else for that matter. People need to just do their own work. [/hide] Hah Wow jopie you quite literally rinsed that guy :P Oh yeah, he sure showed me! ... . . . . . .

Ghost hunters' pretty good show with nice evidence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2oTGk8jvuw 99% of their evidence is EVPs, which can all be chalked-up to pareidolia.

you get twice as wet because you fall in the river as well That.. was genius.

*high five*

Exactly. I doubt that you did the trees, somehow. And are the people supposed to be ghosts or something? :# Otherwise, even if you don't want them to attract attention, they are too pale. I'm pretty sure the foliage is brushes. That's usually fine, but in this case it really doesn't seem like you did a lot, and what you did could be a lot better in my opinion. Why are brushes usually fine? It's like renders, the only difference between using brushes/renders and outright stealing somebody elses work is that it's not (usually) illiegal. People need to just do their own work.

I always say something exists until proven false. A very good opinion to have : If by very good you mean.. y'know.. very bad. I believe that a death fairy exists who will give me $1,000,00 in cash for every person I shoot in the head. This fairy will also make it so nobody will ever know I shot anybody so I'll get away with it! Can you see how bad that opinion can be?

They won't start actual collisions until October.

It's not a bad idea, and it's hard to play something that doesn't exist. ;) No, we don't "know enough about science". The search for truth is one of the noblest ideals, and science, as far as we know, is the best way to pursue truth about our universe. Who is going to benefit? Who knows? The ramifications in terms of technology for the average person probably won't be felt for a very long time, but even if it never brings anything useful, who cares? Like I said, it will give us a better understanding of the universe, and that knowledge alone is worth the money. Ok I know that you're in the right. I've been arguing with my dad about this for a few days and I know I'm in the wrong, and yet I still think it's just a bad idea... Couldn't we have spent 4 billion on something that would benefit the world for certain, rather than hanging hopes on this? It will benefit the world for certain, because at the very least, we'll know that collisions on this magnitude don't produce or do produce certain effects.

It's not a bad idea, and it's hard to play something that doesn't exist. ;) No, we don't "know enough about science". The search for truth is one of the noblest ideals, and science, as far as we know, is the best way to pursue truth about our universe. Who is going to benefit? Who knows? The ramifications in terms of technology for the average person probably won't be felt for a very long time, but even if it never brings anything useful, who cares? Like I said, it will give us a better understanding of the universe, and that knowledge alone is worth the money.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence for ghosts, poltergeists, UFOs, bigfoot, etc. You would think that with the number of "paranormal investigators" we would've found something worthwhile by now.

What the hell? What's to know? That's like saying you know barely aothing about walking. You put one foot in front of the other and you move forward. That's all there is to it. Ok...smuding...good..ish. Sorry, didn't mean to come off as a jerk. It's just very odd to me to hear "smudging" talked about like it's some whole seperate technique.

What the hell? What's to know? That's like saying you know barely aothing about walking. You put one foot in front of the other and you move forward. That's all there is to it.

Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked many times.. Just because something is bizarrely complex doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved through completely natural and gradual means.

Doesn't make much sense, but it's true.

Most of the people who disagree with evolution think that Catholics are heretics, so, that doesn't really help.