i think i need this plugin
thank you in advance, sir.

interesting and automatically had that texture as a skin

i totally agree on that opinion, bigstick.
at least from the description and exhibits showing what it might capable of.

@unknownuser said:

That's it. Little House on the Prairie. Loved that show as a kid.

They don't make 'em like that anymore.

i love that one too

that looks a bit impolite charly

well to all, best wishes for you and beloved ones in your holidays.
have a good time with your family and beloved ones.

wow

wew awesome

@hellnbak said:

Looks nice, but I gotta ask - why is it so dark? Can't make out any details at all.

that's it. i quit

thank you very much TIG.
for Extrusion Tool Set, i've learnt and succeed using the EEbyRail
it works great as if a wizard made it
thank you

@unknownuser said:

Well, it was "oil", it was "changing government", but if that numbers are true, then it must be more to worth it...

don't forget other main thing, sales and marketing point for arms industries.
they wont make it if those any military forces didn't see any need to sign up a contract for purchasing more and more arms for war over and again. the more the merrier...
the more profit to make

and the field probably well prepared for another harvest to come

The West and its plans to force regime change in many countries

aha less reflective sails now.
no longer satin but cotton instead
love your works Marius

(edited)
may i download a copy of that last image, Marius?
it's so detailed. so gorgeous
like what i have in Sid Meier's Pirates but with more detailed beautiful model there

looks great and impressive.
though yes i admit that i agree, it might be a bit overdone?
we have our grand family's houses in other province with beautiful natural greenish surrounding. including those waterfalls alike. big and small ones.
in that height and slope elevation the water might be still looks crystal clear mostly. sometimes with tiny sprinkles everywhere, if it has quicker flowing speed.

those are marvelous works

Jeff, if you were talking about many gods in context with those translation. it doesn't.
any "us" words in the scripture (if that was what you mean) belong to god and his closest servant. i heard some people in the west call them archangels or something. even the new pagans do.

@unknownuser said:

you'd probably have your own version of god though (well, more likely than not, you'd have a whole bunch of gods..).. and i highly (highly!) doubt it would be the same version you are speaking of today.

i did actually have the same doubts. those were times when i still stick around with Karl Marx and his fellow bunch. we have also some "thinkers" here. some are total famous atheist, like one of them have his book "Madilog" so famous. it stands for materialism, dialectic and logic. i lost the book though. can't find it anymore here in this room. someone probably borrowed it and forgot (i hope) to return it.
those times are over for me now. personally.

@unknownuser said:

supernatural is a word created by man.. it basically means the same thing as god and a point that i've been trying to make earlier is that when man can't explain something then we have the tendency to assign a god to it..

well, those words are copy pasted from a website. there are other sites with more or less similar explanation. but that one looks a bit simpler with numbered list. it may be the conventional term or word to describe the matter.

actually when i saw this topic on the forum, i say to myself, "not another one".
it's like trying to explain to some people about the suitable tools for certain purposes.
like; philosophy, science, art, etc. (personally, i only consider those three as main tools, or say "plugins").

i have a book here back from long time ago, when i was still at high school before i went to univ. entitled "Science in Perspective" if translated. a good not too thick book actually. sort of compilation of some other writings. unfortunately this books is in my language. it talks about "science" itself. we need it since we have to prepare ourselves leaving school to go to univ. so, that's the reason i don't really like the topic. risky. as if something put before us and people in crowd bringing whatever tools they have. each of some may even doesn't really understand their own tools. am a bit lazy to interpret it and quote it.

i guess it's just a topic in a forum. wont makes me deal with any kind of graduation either

@solo said:

@unknownuser said:

if you're blind, does not mean that what you cannot see does not exist.

You are right as you can touch, smell, hear and taste if it exists.

didn't you read "the limitations of science" i posted above?
ok, let me correct that for you.

if you cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste it. it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

for an example. let's put it this way.
i cannot see, hear, smell, feel or taste whatever that is the real you. does it mean that you do not exist?

your "limitations" does not mean that anything beyond "them" does not exist.

science is not the perfect tool or "plugin" to use when it comes to justify whether there is god or not. or even "did God create the universe".

i say that science failed for that matter.
it doesn't work as it's expected to be. with all of instruments or any given resources there are. as predictable comprehensively understood mechanism. cause and effect procedures. and there was obviously no "poof" and a conclusion as a result.

science failed. it's just a pile of craps with good packaging design.

if you're blind, does not mean that what you cannot see does not exist.

@hieru said:

then they must operate acvording to materialistic mechanisms that we simply do not understand yet. Proof that such phenomena exist would cause us to rethink the laws of physics, but ultimately any new paradigm would still be materialistic in nature and subject to the scientific method.

everything in your world must be "materialistic" and "mechanical"?
well, bad news. your god so called science with any laws of physics etc, admit that it is not perfect. putting it mild.

@unknownuser said:

There are three primary areas for which science can't help us answer our questions. All of these have the same problem: The questions they present don't have testable answers. Since testability is so vital to the scientific process, these questions simply fall outside the venue of science.

The three areas of limitation are

1. Science can't answer questions about value. For example, there is no scientific answer to the questions, "Which of these flowers is prettier?" or "which smells worse, a skunk or a skunk cabbage?" And of course, there's the more obvious example, "Which is more valuable, one ounce of gold or one ounce of steel?" Our culture places value on the element gold, but if what you need is something to build a skyscraper with, gold, a very soft metal, is pretty useless. So there's no way to scientifically determine value.

2. Science can't answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. This is why expert scientific witnesses can never help us solve the dispute over abortion: all a scientist can tell you is what is going on as a fetus develops; the question of whether it is right or wrong to terminate those events is determined by cultural and social rules--in other words, morality. The science can't help here.

Note that I have not said that scientists are exempt from consideration of the moral issues surrounding what they do. Like all humans, they are accountable morally and ethically for what they do.

3. Finally, science can't help us with questions about the supernatural. The prefix "super" means "above." So supernatural means "above (or beyond) the natural." The toolbox of a scientist contains only the natural laws of the universe; supernatural questions are outside their reach.

In view of this final point, it's interesting how many scientists have forgotten their own limitations. Every few years, some scientist will publish a book claiming that he or she has either proven the existence of a god, or proven that no god exists. Of course, even if science could prove anything (which it can't), it certainly can't prove this, since by definition a god is a supernatural phenomenon.
So the next time someone invokes "scientific evidence" to support his or her point, sit back for a moment and consider whether they've stepped outside of these limitations.

Science does not mean "everything" to justify about "anything".

@hieru said:

I'm not sure how a study of God could be objective if you start out with the assumption that he exists. If however you remove that bias, any proof of God's existence would have to stand up to the scientific method and cannot defy the material laws of physics. The problem is that any God that could be shown to exist under those conditions would not resemble the God described in the Bible or any other religious text.

However I'm not saying that seemingly paranormal phenomena cannot exist, only that if they do exist then they must operate acvording to materialistic mechanisms that we simply do not understand yet. Proof that such phenomena exist would cause us to rethink the laws of physics, but ultimately any new paradigm would still be materialistic in nature and subject to the scientific method.

assumption? i still remember when i was still in university that they told me to do research and write something to present it and later become thesis. thesis itself means

@unknownuser said:

the·sis (thss)
n. pl. the·ses (-sz)

1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.
2. A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research, especially as a requirement for an academic degree.
   3. A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof.
3. The first stage of the Hegelian dialectic process.

even any science start from a scratch of assumption, proposition, without proof. are you sure you know what you are talking about here?