Nook
-
Posts
312 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Nook
-
-
> Okay, well, since I haven't looked into it, how is it EVER possible to tell where the universe started? This seems so weird to me..If they took the radiation date from different asteroids in different areas and examined which one is the oldest then I see serious flaws.
[http://en.wikipedia….tional_evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence)
One of the most obvious indicators is found in light itself. Light is a wave. Color is determined by the wavelength. When you move towards light, the wavelength gets shorter, or more [blue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift). When you move away from light, the wavelength gets longer, or more [red](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift). Thus, you can determine the direction an object is moving in relation to you by the color of the light.
Scientists took this knowledge and mapped out the cosmos accordingly. Turns out that if you were to go back far enough on the timeline, everything would converge into a single point. Hey wait… that sounds familiar.
Also, have you ever turned on the TV (before cable) and witnessed static? Ever wonder what that stuff is? Most of it is stray local radio waves, but a tiny bit of it is actually the big bang - or what's left of it. The entire universe is permeated with a faint microwave glow. Some event billions of years ago was so hot and so powerful that [we can still observe its radioactive signature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation). What could that be? I'll give you a hint. It was _big_.
If you're still not a believer, then I encourage you to look further into the subject. The evidence is overwhelming.
> Evolution is another big question mark. It was invented by one man who had, yet again, a THEORY.
What the hell…
Did you not read mine and Syn's posts? I'm not going to repeat something that has already been answered.
> It has been proven that at one point in time, the entire earth was covered by water. Taking a sample of ice means nothing if it wasnt there X years ago.
> And check this out. -snip-
The only people who "find" that stuff are the religious zealots who are always unable to produce anything beyond pictures and videos. How convenient.
> And this city, which lies in south america, has scientists baffled. They could not recreate it today. They have asked the local tribes, and they say that 'the giants built that city before we ever arrived.' [http://s8int.com/phile/page54.html](http://s8int.com/phile/page54.html)
>
> Again, utter respect for all of you, these are just my opinions
Correction: it has historians baffled. We don't know how they did it, but we know how they _could have_ done it. The pyramids and monoliths around the world are incredible feats, but all very possible to create with just wheels and man power.
I cannot begin to believe how you can argue that a society that builds skyscrapers and sent people to the moon couldn't move a 360 ton rock. In 2004, the **15,140 ton** Fu Gang building was relocated 118 feet.
That site you linked to is a joke. It claims man walked with dinosaurs for crying out loud. Go find a real source.
> Btw, the man-made ideas of god(s) and creationism are also **theories**.
**Literary** theories. Don't confuse him.  Scientific theory is something completely different.
Good video tho. -
> But no one has ever proved evolution with cold hard facts as of yet.
And no one ever will "prove" evolution until we build a time machine to the past. In other words: that's not likely to happen.
> As for the world being millions of years old… It very well could be, but carbon dating is a laughing stock. They have no idea how much carbon was in the world 500 years ago, much less the apparent 200,000,000,000,000 it is.
I see you've bought in to Christian propaganda. Good job.
Carbon dating is pretty damn accurate, actually, because we _do_ know how much carbon was around X years ago. Stratigraphy and ice core samples from Antarctica provide a snapshot of the earth and its atmosphere at a given time period. Plus, carbon isn't the only kind of radiometric dating used.
lol @ 200 trillion years in a 14 billion year old universe.
> True enough, science is never wrong, but theory's have a 85% chance to be. Just like the big bang, there is no solid facts, it is merely a theory.
People like you fail to realize that there are two distinct kinds of theories. You're mistaking scientific theory with literary theory. Stop.
If evolution is true, then we'd only be able to observe it on the micro scale. And what do you know? **We do**. Hell… without this _theory_, modern medicine wouldn't be where it is. By your logic, I guess out of Germ Theory, Gravity Theory, Plate Tectonics Theory, Quantum Theory, and the Theory of Relativity, some are bound to be false? Riiiiiiight. Might as well say goodbye to today's world as you know it.
And man… I can't believe there are still people today that claim the Big Bang isn't built on facts. We've already proved that the entire universe originated from a single point. That's not ducking debatable. Those of us living in the 21st century are busy trying to figure out how, not what.
btw 85% of statistics are made up.
EDIT: seems I was a page behind on replies. oops. -
Mistrust of the government doesn't instantly make someone a conspiracy theorist. 
I'm no expert on the subject, but I think CISPA allows your information that was disclosed to a company to be passed to the government (and potentially other companies) without requiring that you be notified. This includes everything recorded _before_ the bill was passed… even if it was disclosed under promise of security.
Yeah, the bill has potential for good, but the (vague) wording allows for unreasonable searches and that's dat shit we don't like. I fail to see how several Americans protecting something guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights is silly. -
Story Time.
in Trash
> I shall 
 -
> I'm not a typical debater. Presenting evidence is a headache - people seem to never accept sources or like to complain about them. I could list like 10 news sites with it, and someone would comment on the first one if it was a bad source. When someone links multiple sources, they are trying to get rid of the idiots who like to say you're wrong.
That's because, so far, they are bad sources. Linking to someone else's subjective claims and ramblings doesn't constitute as proof. Give us REAL evidence and we'll be all over you like a fat kid on cake.
I really do wish you had the capability to think objectively. You've made it very clear that any rational arguments against your cause fall on deaf ears. If anything, at least you know what we feel like. -
It ducking irks me to no end how you can speak so pragmatically about the garbage you make up.
You should ditch God and start worshiping yourself, the new prophet. -
Looks great so far.
Does this have alpha blending (shadow color) and multi-tile pasting (e.g. pasting an entire tree at once rather than each tile individually)? -
> It says in the GUI that the graphics and text should be ignored.
Then he can choose to ignore that feedback. As Marshy Dearest said, there's not much else to look at without them. There's absolutely no harm in additional input. Feedback on the placeholders can help to clarify some do's and don't's. The criticism is there if he wants it. If not… no harm done. -
Will there be any additional interfaces? Or is this GUI fully inclusive?
I too recommend a horizontal hot bar instead what you have. It would feel far more intuitive that way. If it were up to me, I'd also have the HP/SP/MP attached to the hot bar. I like having everything together so that my eyes don't have to dart around a GUI (Look to GW2 for an example).
> "IGNORE TEXT AND GRAPHICS"
>
> Every single comment discussing the font or graphics.
>
> 3 out of 6 comments mentioning the layout.
>
> Topic summary: congratulations on reading comprehension.
Oh no! God forbid someone offer comprehensive feedback on what's in front of them! -
Layout seems effective enough. I'm eager to see what it looks like with some aesthetic detailing. The (placeholder) font is passable in the GUI, but terrible for the chatbox.
-
Wait… so what are mutes used for, then?
-
> If I remember right, touchofdeath.com was a porno website at one point. I discovered this after making a mistake in the url.
Haha, I remember that… Celebrity porno, specifically.  -
Do you have a Deviant Art or Pixel Joint account? -
If I go down in all this, then I leave all my powers to my successor, lord, and savior: Nook.
-
> Stop impersonating me. Only the true marsh has 999999 warning points. Of course if you want to make the disguise complete….
Throw in the 10k postcount and the painties and you have yourself a deal.  -
Impersonating as the true marsh? Banned.
-
Awww yeah. You can bet I'm gonna be watching this.
-
Didn't look for it the first playthrough, but it's an option for me now. It's a tribute to the retro 90's shooters that makes the game way more hardcore. Enemies are tougher, resources are scarcer, and revival costs money.
-
Beat it a couple days ago. That last part of the game got a little weird for me, but the ending was superb.
I'm on my second replay, and it's quite a new experience. Everything makes so much sense now.
Awesome game imo. -
Yesterday saw the release of BioShock Infinite in the US.
It's getting perfect or near-perfect scores across the board and already the most likely candidate for game of the year. I just started playing and can see why. It's great to see a sequel live up to the predecessor.
What are you guys' thoughts on the game?  -
> I wasn't talking about value. Your life is not forever; thus this illustrates a waste of existence in the sense that you and everyone you ever cared about is erased when you die. I am looking at this realistically.
No, you're looking at it pessimistically. Religion has done you a serious disservice for it to make you incapable of finding value in a universe without God. Thankfully, most rational, proficient thinkers are not so feeble minded.
Your inability to live a meaningful life without the existence of magic is irrelevant to the objective truth: your religion is as (in)credible as all other religions.
Fun fact: Of the top 5 "happiest" countries in the world, 3 of them are among the least religious in the world.
> If religion is an obselite tool then why does 90% of our population practice some type of religion? I would like to know what makes your statement a fact? Your short lesson was in no shape of form accurate.
>
> Yes that is what I was implying, you are the one that said religion is this useless tool the causes nothing but ptoblems. If your theory on evolution is correct then people can evolve to understand each others religion differences as well.
Even if 90% of people believe in religion, that's still 10% less than what it was a few hundred years ago. If history shows us anything, it's that ignorance takes a long time to weed out.
Religion was born in order to explain the unknown. It makes for great storytelling, but as a learning tool it is completely destructive.
Let me give you a quick history lesson as an example. A lot of people are familiar with Isaac Newton's genius, but many people are unfamiliar of his fatal mistake. Newton was able to mathematically explain the force of gravity and calculate the interaction between two orbiting bodies with great precision. But according to his math, the interaction between all the objects in the solar system should tear everything out of alignment. He could not figure out how the solar system stayed so perfectly balanced. Finally, in his ignorance, he made the assumption that God occasionally intervenes to fine-tune everything. Religion became his scapegoat and he gave up. Then, almost a hundred years later, a guy name Pierre Simon de Laplace came along and accurately calculated the stability of the solar system without using God.
Moral of the damn story: Dismissing phenomena as a "miracles of God" accomplishes **absolutely nothing**. Scientific advancements come from the people who take rational approaches. The [God of the gaps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) is receding exponentially.
Any other "benefits" of religion can be obtained without it, as I explained earlier.
Now, take in everything I just said. I dare you to find an objective way in which religion is not obsolete. Like Budweiser said, philosophy =/= religion.
"There is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance." ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson -
Oops, totally forgot to respond to this. Better late than never?
> I see evolution requiring a huge amount of faith just like religion. It is silly because religion offers proof through the ages; where evolution is just people thinking this is the way things are. I like to ask questions; that's how I debate. Evidence is something science uses, and if there's not compelling enough evidence from science there's no need for me to present any from my own argument (religion is founded on faith and science should not be).
What a silly thing to say. You're trying to tell me that human storytelling is more credible than fossil records dating millions of years prior? That it takes more faith to observe morphology in the fossil records than it does to take a 2000 year old book's word for it?
If I came up to you and told you fairies were real, it would become my burden to prove it, not your burden to prove otherwise. If you have proof, or even evidence, of your religion, then please enlighten us.
You're free to believe whatever you want, but do not make such arrogant and ridiculous statements against those who chose to follow science. -
> People are over looking the whole point of religion. Its not just about how we see god its about hope, having something to look toward to, self discipline, honesty I could keep going but I need to keep this short.
And if people can gain that from religion, more power to them. Religion is not _necessary_ to get that, however. All those qualities can be found elsewhere. Enlightenment, even, can be obtained through science.
"We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically." -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Shit's deep.
Let me throw in a personal opinion: my lack of religion makes _me_ a stronger individual. I do not seek the comfort of an afterlife, I am a good person not because I'm afraid of punishment, I am inspired by forces I can actually witness, and I do not suffer from false hope or belief in magic. I do not have to adjust my lifestyle to agree with a 2000 year old book. I draw my own opinions instead of having them given to me.
I don't mean to suggest that religion makes a person weak; I'm saying that lack of religion prevents me from falling victim to those crutches.
> Islam's religion tells you to kill people… All I got to say about that.
And the Bible says to stone disobedient children to death… all I got to say about that. -
> Right, but look at it this way. If they need oxygen and there's no water for them to use to breathe; how exactly do they get oxygen to live long enough to reproduce? It makes sense that if evolution works they would grow lungs and dispose of their gills, right? Why don't we see transitional mutations like that in any organisms? Pathogens are not multi-cellular organisms and do not count. They are designed around that type of behavior in my opinion.
People are calling you ignorant for a reason. We're not saying it to get under your skin; we're saying it because you've proven it to be true. Many of your statements on the subject are flat out wrong.
[Transitional fossils](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Fish_to_Tetrapods) are aplenty. All you had to do was look. Where could lungs come from? The [swim bladder](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swim_bladder). In fact, [there are even multi-jointed, leg-like finned fish that can breath air and water](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish) alive today. And, hello? Did you forget about amphibians? They are living transitional fossils for crying out loud. They breathe through gills as young and through lungs by adulthood. I don't know how you could make such ignorant statements, considering the evidence is overwhelming. The transition from fish to tetrapod is one of the best understood evolutionary changes. Please, [educate yourself](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod#Origin) a _little_.
I'm curious to know how you explain things like whales with hip and leg bones, the human tailbone, the appendix, human wisdom teeth, the (unused) sexual organs in dandelions, the eyes of the blind cave fish, the wings of flightless birds, and other vestigial structures.
Bacterial evolution (including multi-cellular bacteria) is observable. Entirely new species have been witnessed to emerge. You don't think that counts as evolution, you say? Too bad. Evolution doesn't care what you think. The proof is right in front of you and you still reject it.
Making animations is a pain.
in Show Off
Posted
The swing attacks don't look very powerful. Why? Because the movement is slow and the swing ends abruptly in front of the player. The guy is more or less weakly attacking the spot to his right. If you were to keep the same number of frames but increase the area of the swing, it'd look more natural imo. I'm not sure if I like the current motion blur effect…