[QUOTE="synyster-666"][QUOTE="Dylan_11"]I lol'd.SoraX64And I thought I was the only one. :PMe three.Is it because you guys know better, or are willing to settle with mediocrity? Serious question.
MagicalHobo's forum posts
I looked at a few of the latter pages in this thread and I figured I should chime in with some insight that I think is important for most of you to hear. I've seen the term "render" used incorrectly numerous times throughout the years, mostly by those who have developed their graphical knowledge and skills primarily though signature-oriented communities.
Most often, I see the term "render" applied to a cut-out image--such as an anime character or car--used in a sig. There are also numerous websites that refer to such images as renders. This is an incorrect usage of the term. These images would more properly be described as "extractions" or "crops", and the original images they were taken from as the "stock" images. An actual render is an original image created through the use of programs like 3DsMax or Photoshop. This does not apply to using such a program (ie photoshop or gimp) to extract an image, however.
It may sound trivial, but I think proper use of the terms is important for any of you who are considering doing anythingmore with photoshop than make sigs. It also makes people with a better understanding of graphic design more likely to take you seriously.
[QUOTE="MagicalHobo"]Perhaps they copied it from the same place this guy did? This was made first..And it was made somewhere else before that. Obviously the other thread was pretty stupid, but it isn't like he found the thread here and posted it again.[QUOTE="Crazyguy105"]
It's not awesome. D:
How dare someone copy this guys thread! >:[
C-Lee
Good job copying other threads...AtomicBaconBitsThe other one was a copy as well, so don't hate on him. Hate on both of them.
[QUOTE="C-Lee"]Some guy just copied this entire thread... Not cool...Crazyguy105
It's not awesome. D:
How dare someone copy this guys thread! >:[
Perhaps they copied it from the same place this guy did?Sorta. The current theories, and the ones I believe are the most convincing, involve a lot of thermodynamic concepts (ie entropy, and anything mass/energy related). Also, the creation of the universe is a grey area topic. Some, like me, don't believe the universe was "created" at all. Instead, we believe it has always existed. How the form of the universe came to be as we know it, however, would be a topic of discussion. From this perspective, evolution on a different scale, such as molecular evolution (from hydrogen/protons, or even smaller subparticles), can be said to have been an important process of the origins of our universe.The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Period.
Shad0ki11
Also, I would like to clarify that evolution isn't a theory. For all intents and purposes, evolution is a fact; it is essentially an undeniable process. Concepts that describe/justify how evolution occurs are theories, i.e. the theory of natural selection.
Log in to comment