Part 2. As in, World of Goo original is gooey part 1, mine is part 2!

WILL EVERYONE PLEASE pickle the cucumbers FOR CRYING OUT LOUD
GOOEY HAS SPOKEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello, I've haven't really looked at this site cause I'm really busy. I've looked here only once and that was because Wiki-goo made me. He asked me to join forums but I don't have so much time for that so I looked in 2Dboy web site about the history of WOG that it wasn't made in one day. I don't really know what I could be interested in this web site so you could tell me your opinions what could I do and where could I go on this web site (Meanwhile I found this really boring ).

Hey there, Sign Painter! I suggest making a forum topic to introduce yourself. Of course, if you don't want to, you don't have to, but it would allow you to make a proper introduction and us to make a proper welcome.

-the sign painter is not a newbie and by the way he is my dad. He is not really interested in all this so I don't think there is point for making introducing himself. By the way he made one level with my Ugly pipe.

P.S: He is over 40 years old.

Your dad?!? Your lucky your dad even takes an intrest in World Of Goo!! My dad doesn't care except when he sees how impressive my mods for it are!

My dad was only interested in me working on the modder and how I could use it to get into a good technological college. It never got anywhere.

Also Dan/Momo/Wiki: Stop hating. He's a member. We're keeping him. Deal with it.

Oh my god,it's the sign painter

A fan, but I remember when he/she first joined.

Could someone go on chat please

Sorry Wiki, I'd never noticed him before, so I assumed he was a newbie.

Whole of wiki's family is at Goofans
Where's your ma?

And sis?

http://goofans.com/user/9348

I've been thinking about this one for a while. Sorta slow on the draw on my part, but these were very good questions and I wanted to be sure to answer them as fully as possible.

Apologies on my part for not explaining this very well. What I was shooting at is that there's a difference between opinion and truth. Opinions can change. Everyone on the planet can fervently believe that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't change the fact that He's there. It's like how everyone in the world used to think the planet was flat. The world didn't turn flat just because everyone believed it was flat. No, the world was round. And will continue to stay round until the Vogons come to build an interstellar highway.

The point here isn't my opinion that God is real being correct. My opinion doesn't matter. The point is that God has said that He's real, and my opinion is that He's right. Whether anybody chooses to believe or disbelieve Him is entirely their opinion.

No, this isn't a grand argument for Christianity, nor is it intended to be, as a counterargument would sound very similar. But hopefully this clarifies my stance on opinion vs. truth.

Interesting. I hadn't heard of such. Well, now I know.

Apologies, this was a gross overgeneralization on my part. Though that is a good point; what's everyone's worldview? I've heard a number of good ones over the years.

Very true. But does where you got your beliefs from change the fact that you could be right or wrong?

( see http://goofans.com/forum/and-then/pictures-of-your-cat/3206 )
Not to be a stickler or anything; I'm just confused here. What DO you believe? No offense intended.

True that. But where'd I say that faith was the thing that made me so sure I was correct? I don't remember saying that.

Well, no, I wouldn't walk up to him, stare him in the eyes, shake my fist in his face, and say "YOU'RE WRONG, BUDDY!" That'd just be rude. I'd have to hear the whole story and think and pray about it before responding. I haven't actually heard a story like that before, though. Have you? Just curious; not trying to be offensive or demanding here.

But to answer the question directly, yes, I would believe his faith was wrong. We're told in the Bible that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Lying, deception, and confusion are common tools he uses to pull people away from God. I follow a Savior Who can and does perform miracles, yes, but I don't follow miracles themselves.

Religion is a human invention, thus god has a human form, it was all just created by us. What I mean is, this is a question of point of view, had you been a chicken, you would believe in the chicken god. God was also invented as a way to answer unanswered questions, so yeah to me, it does not exist if it was not proven.

Interesting hypothesis.

Personally, I'm brought up in such a way that I believe in God. But that's not to say I'm sure that I do: I dunno yet.

My MOM mostly dislikes the WOG in my family. She likes really simple games

WOO! Finally!

This is generally the answer Christians give me. I apologize and didn't mean to imply it was yours.

From a scientific standpoint, I disagree with the whole concept of religion. From a morality standpoint, I think it helps people. From a capitalist standpoint, I think it's slowing humanity down. If you HAD to place a label on me, it'd be atheist. That's what I tell people when they ask.

First off, lol! This example can be used for a number of arguments. It's what you could call a universal rebuttal. Even the atheist argument could use it. For instance, I could say (and this probably won't happen) that religion is just an idea that will be given up on in the future, and it's just the most widely-believed theory currently; the same applies to the "flat earth".

I have much more of an argument in the back of my mind but I'll hold off until I get it ready for you.

I have one... Evolution! No longer a theory.

Evolution is still a theory. It's widely-believed, but that doesn't make it true; however, in the same sense, the theory that the world is round is widely-believed, but due to the rule of it being a theory, it can potentially be disproved. This is how modern science (the kind that accelerates rapidly and gives us technology far faster than we could have imagined previously) works.

Modern science is crazy.

Still, if you take the fourth dimension into account, the world may not actually be round. It may - technically - be flat.

you guys are funny, you know.
I'm technically about your chat.

Yah, that's kinda what I said.

Hehe. It works for everything!

@Red Classic Christian argument! But explain this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
If it doesn't prove evolution, it does destroy creationnism. Also, do you really think some omnipotent being, flashed all life on earth? How would you explain genetic similarities between spiecies, to me only genetic drift and natural selection, which are the major motors of evolution, can explain this. It just makes so much sense

Really? Oh Puuuhleeeeeeeze...
This is what I was talking about earlier, how a lot of scientific "evidence" isn't evidence one way or the other. Lucy by no means even begins to be evidence for macroevolution. Sure, the knee can be reconstructed to look more like a human knee than an ape knee. It can also be reconstructed to look like a perfectly ordinary ape knee. Sure, the jaw and skull can be reconstructed to look more like human jaws and skulls. They can also be reconstructed to look like an ordinary ape jaw and skull. Get the drift? Lucy could have been a "missing link", but she could just as easily have been a completely ordinary ape, just a slightly different species than we've seen so far. This doesn't "prove" or "destroy" anything. All it is is a 50/50 chance of being "the missing link," depending on which scientists you trust.

Yep.

A Creator Who makes some things similar and other things different. This argument is using your personal opinion to look at something, pretending you can see it objectively. You can't. Nobody can. Of course your point of view makes perfect sense to you and you can't see anything else; that's what everyone else thinks too. This is why purely scientific debates get virtually nowhere, because nobody can prove anybody wrong just with evidence because what looks like concrete evidence to one person is laughable to another.

Problem is, and not many people will tell you this, but it makes no genetic sense at all. From all observable evidence, genetic information decreases over time.

@Point one: Nah, it was proven to be more similar to Homo Sapiens then to an ape.
@Point two: I'm not arguing with that one since its just a question of point of view.
@Point three: My point was objective. We can map out evolution with common ancestors. There is no concrete explanation on the religious side as to why these similarities exist (unless you find a passage in the bible, in which case I'm screwed).
@Genetic info does not decrease, allelic diversity can vary to a frequency where one allele tends to zero. But genetic information cannot decrease, I will just assume you meant something else. Did you know during the course of its evolution, the apple tree doubled its chromosomes?

Momo's argument is a bit biased here, which is the argument I was trying to avoid. I think MOM is making more sense here.

300th post