Messages

.Ã,  Maybe he means that they're not at the usual overhead angle?

Yes, that somewhat.

Or because they're not wearing armour and stuff?

Thats what I mostly mean. I havn;t played many rpgs, but most seem to be with armor and stuff like that.

Yes but still the idea holds, people want morality to be from something bigger then themselves. And I don't think government is the best person to be handing out moral judgments. I think there is some paper about the different levels of moral reasoning, and how the second to top one was because in the end it hurts a lot of people and US. That seems to be were government ends. But the top one was, because it is WRONG. I think we need religion to provide that level of moral reasoning.   Some people may not, but it seems most do.

I would like to thank you all for your helpfull hints and tips, as well as the animations. from the warcraft satyr,( good for those uber heavy charactors) from Def to the kings quest satyr from GarageGothic. Though it was only 4 frames, I thank Dorcan for his original work. it nice to know people kind of care. Thanx!

As in,spandex?

Religion has a purpose in this world, even if its core belief (belief in one or more gods) is not rational. Science can not and should not make moral judgments. It is not the job of science determine if something is moral or not. THAT is religion's job. It is supposed to be the voice that yells "STOP!" when an outrage occers.However religion doesn't always do that, for religions are made up of people, people with prejudice's and long standing beliefs just like anyone else. Members of the religious community did not make noise during the holocaust, and for that I weep bitterly. But that is its purpose, to cry out when something feels WRONG. Now it is almost misfiring, aiming at things not so important.
BUT it must continue, for though many say it is hidebound and ultra-conservative. Well that is what it is supposed to be. Someone, even if most of us think they are wrong, must yell, even if it is pointless.

yet again I enter in the vain hope of winning,
this guy is aÃ,  snuffler, he was inspired by that picasso painting,"the old guitarist"

every bar needs music, right?
Gathuun Byrdrog!
(Pee Safely!)

what kind of rpg is it anyway, except for their anime style, they don't seem very typical rpg sprites. (nothing wrong with that)

So what I'm trying to say is that Jazz doesn't tast good with chocolate... wait. Now I'm confused

I agree, the jazz I like wouldn't go well with chocolate( at least the jazz I listen to)I like a jazz (not saying this is the best just a personal preference) that drops hesitantly like last raindrops with some smoky sexy woman's voice on vocals. though I am a confirmed chocoholic, it wouldn't go well with THAT jazz.

I would like to apologise for my rude comments earlier in the thread. They were wrong, sorry.   

If you ask this monkey, it is probably because, except when we get in to very esoteric subjects, one CAN be right or wrong. "Krug see rock" "No, Krug see bunny," "Rock!" "Bunny!!" "ROCK!!!" "Krug see rock, cuz' krug want Ã, sex with ma"
"err..KRUG SMASH FRAUD!!" see how silly it is?(Also why fraud would never have survived the Neolithic) One of the gifts of languages is that people can disagree. One person may have better eyesight., one may a better vantage point. things like that. with languages they can share information.
HOWEVER in MOST topics of the prehistoric world, ONE was right and the other wasn't. Agreeing with someone that a lion was a rabbit when you see a lion, got you killed more often then if you disagreed. you might be wrong, but the bunny is no danger, while a lion IS! which is why this innate human stubbornness could be in place.

True and I would never disagree with that. I LOVE science by the way, One of my fondest hopes a little kiddle was going to the moon, I love poaring over facts and such.
Now I read the the bit on law of thermodynamics. but I disagree. yes life is a creates more life. but life doesn't "want" to exist.what I am asking is how life could originate. from utterly dead matter. Quite likley I am a foolish man trying to convince others of my own dogma, but I am still convinced. and no I don't think they are evil or stupid. i am not 
so foolish as that. can't think of anything else to say right now, except, What IS a universe? That is probebly the ultimite question.

then could someone explain to me  the Taylor trail on the Paluxy river bed, near glenn rose texes were there are Dino prints and homonid prints in the same place? some times even homonid prints within the dino prints.

Ether actually is a very good example of how scientists can take just as long as anyone to change there mind.
Ether was noted to be a problem almost as soon as it was postulated. Even when electromagnetic waves were thought of, it took quite a while before they were accepted. Why because Newton, was untouchable. Anyone who disagreed with him was almost automatically considered wrong. They thought that the last puzzles of physics were clicking into place, and by the end of the 19th century, all would be understood. We know now they were dead wrong.

  erm, sorry about that. Your right Becky! As you can see I changed the post above, to fitr your standerds. Thanx

Umm…esper. If you really wanted to hide the names, just selecting and deleting would have worked better. I can sort of read quite a few of the names Gestalt psychology works against you here.

No, but I read ALL the books, and saw ALL the BBC films.
If you consider budget and era made. the BBC ones are preatty darn good.

What other ideas do you want the evolutionary scientists to be open too? And is there no evolutionary scientist that is open to these ideas?

I wouldn't say that, but the general public consensus seems to be "God CAN"T exist". what each individual scientist thinks is well, up to each individual.

I didn't say creationists have to modify their beliefs, that's not really their thing with a very good reason. If the Bible don't say it, it didn't happen! [sorta]

Then what does that make me? Not an evolutionist, not a intelligent designer proponent, and (according to your definition) not a creationist.

So then do you agree that your previous discussion about thermodynamics and life not being created from non-life is something that could change at any moment? Forgive me if you've already stated that.

That’s Ok if someone can show me how it could happen, all right then, but I am not holding my breath. I think it is (and until someone proves me wrong) quite a severe blow to evolution as it now stands.

Besides, how much of the scientific community is devoted to proving god or gods don't exist? Not much at all I wager.

True enough, they are not scheming on how to keep the idea of god out of the world like some stupid (as if it isn't enough) variation on one of those stupid "Jews rule the WORLD!" ideas.
BUT for scientist, evolution is the dominant theory to explain the how life came to be. And in any community it is difficult to think outside the accepted paradigm. To accept unpopular beliefs is a great way to send your career on a fast track to the slow lane. And no scientist wants that.
[edit]
   Thanx Becky, I appreciate the nit picking

yes, but what I mean (as well) is a ZOOM fuction. for example I often do lo-res sprites. at 800/600 (reccomend resilution) they look TINY.

heh, heh ya thats why I am asking you guys. oh, and its a BI-PED walkcycle I am looking for. that is, TWO legs

I can agree with that, in fact I am ashamed of some of the dogmatic "God did it cuz’ I said he did it." attitude of a large number of creationists. or worse "the bible says so" the bible while a fascinating quasi-historical-mythical-metaphorical piece of literature will get one nowhere in a debate. I am not saying science is crock, I just think evolutionary scientists could be a bit more open to other idea's. Maybe there is no god and we are just flouting in an end less void. So creationists need to modify there beliefs to new information? SO could many evolutionists, in my opinion. Scientists are human, and hold treasured beliefs quite firmly.