watch animation - 25% - zoom in - zoom out
drawn in 2 hours 9 min with Oekaki Shi-Painter
Opium (Apr 1, 2006)
Opium (Apr 1, 2006)
drawn in 2 hours 2 min
~GSP~ (Apr 1, 2006)
its a small picture but alot of detail good work!
Opium (Apr 1, 2006)
It is small, I wanted to test myself :) Bigger doesn't always mean better! hehe hopefully that holds true in this case :)
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 1, 2006)
great rendition of one of the world's biggest idiots.
marcello (Apr 1, 2006)
what makes him an idiot?
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 1, 2006)
that's a rhetorical question, I'm sure, since you already know how I would answer
staci (Apr 1, 2006)
id like to know why you think he is an idiot too.
marcello (Apr 1, 2006)
the fruits of his work aside, do you think he was mentally incapable in some form? that's what I'm questioning.
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 1, 2006)
Okay, "idiot" was a wrong choice of words. He wasn't an idiot, technically, he was considered a genius. I believe in God, and I don't agree with his theory. That is what I meant.
(and you might come back and ask... do I call everyone that I disagree with an idiot?, the answer would be no)
Opium (edited Apr 1, 2006)
I'm a biology major so four years of him being revered as a god has been pounded into my head :) I do think that he has some excellent points to his studies, evolution aside. He made some fantastic discoveries for science that had nothing to do with evolution

And DBA, I respect your opinion :) And coming from a lifetime of Christianity, I totally know what you're saying
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 1, 2006)
I don't like him, but your rendering of him is exceptionally well done.
edit: (I appreciate that, and I will respectfully allow you to have your own opinion, as well, even if it is believing in evolution. I would debate it feverishly, but I don't really think here is the place to do it, it would never end. :)
Opium (Apr 1, 2006)
thank you very much :)
DeadlyBlondeArcher (Apr 1, 2006)
yes'm... and again, a very nice drawing of the man I disagree with :D
staci (edited Apr 1, 2006)
..but I don't really think here is the place to do it, it would never end.

then perhaps you should have left your initial comments to the artistic integrity of the piece.
Opium (Apr 1, 2006)
haha evolution is a touchy subject, and I'm not sure how much I believe in it quite yet. And you're right, not a great place to discuss it. Thank you for your maturity :) But I wouldn't expect anything less from you DBA! Thanks for your kind words
DeadlyBlondeArcher (Apr 1, 2006)
no, staci, I felt it was fine to express my opinion regarding the man's theory of evolution and Joy's art at the same time, and it didn't have to go into a major debate.
staci (edited Apr 1, 2006)
reading your initial comment it *seemed* like the 'idiot' was the point you were stressing. but since in every comment after youve continued to point out your dislike of the man, im sure i was wrong.
xiau (Apr 1, 2006)
I disagree with his evolution theories, because, well, I was raised in the church (still am) and so...yeah. You get the idea.

Nonetheless, great picture, I like the way you shaded the wrinkles.
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 1, 2006)
yeah, right, staci, I like the painting and I don't agree with the man's theory of evolution. So what's your point?
(you might hyperventilate if you keep trying to blow on the coals of a dead fire)
staci (Apr 1, 2006)
yay, there's the idiom!

DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 1, 2006)
some days I really try to hate you, but it just isn't possible :)

and Joy... not to start a debate at all, but
evolution is a touchy subject, and I'm not sure how much I believe in it quite yet
is a very hopeful statement as far as I am concerned. Look up to the heavens, and look deep inside yourself, go to the hospital where someone is dying and someone is being born in the same moment. Don't "think" about it. or rationalize it, just feel it, and follow your heart. You won't be able to write a biology excerpt when that kind of research is done, but that is a partial direction on how to find the truth. God is there, and all this didn't happen by accident. That's the most debating I'm gonna do. I'm going to paint now. :)

(with one scientific note: things of great design usually require a great engineer... this universe, the seasons orchestrated so perfectly (besides the heat in Texas, maybe)... the birth of a baby, the way you can just poke a seed in the dirt and it sprouts... in my common sense manner I deduce that that has one great engineer behind the design... don'tcha think?)

The presence of God is also the most easily seen in the eyes of a child... it's called unconditional love.
marcello (Apr 1, 2006)
whether or not evolution is true, intelligent design is less true. there is so much about the world that makes you wonder if the one designing it was drunk.
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 1, 2006)
now that is a very intelligent observation, as well. (oh, but... your definition of "intelligent design" has to be limited to your human knowledge of everything, which... as smart as you are, smarty britches, isn't "all knowing") I think those things are just the things we'll not understand until we earn (I stand corrected, "are graced" with) the right to understand. (but then, Jesus did turn water into wine, so who knows?) maybe .... :) (when man can actually create or destroy matter, I'll listen to him)

I still can't find a useful purpose for all these FIRE ANTS in my yard. *scrunching nose and scratching ankles*
marcello (Apr 1, 2006)
There is nothing about evolution that says god(s) does/do not exist. There's nothing that says that god(s) doesn't/don't influence evolution. You can really have both evolution and faith quite easily. But to deny something only because of some literal interpretation of a text (that is merely an adaptation and interpretation to start with) is insufficient in my mind.

It's worth noting, on the point of seasons orchestrated so perfectly that it's not chance at all we have good weather. If the seasons were unliveable, we wouldn't be alive in the first place. There isn't seriously developed life on any of the other planets in our solar system, because they're all too hot or too cold. However, it's not a coincidence that the Earth is "just right." If it weren't just right, we wouldn't be here to argue the matter. On the same note, the seed that never sprouts, dies. It doesn't produce any new seeds, so you never see it.
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 1, 2006)
it's not a coincidence that the Earth is "just right." If it weren't just right, we wouldn't be here to argue the matter.
AMEN, brothah!

I have never completely discarded the evolutionary theory (although I have a different take on it than Darwin)... we have evolved and are currently evolving, but we didn't slither out of the ocean, become monkey like creatures and then humans. God created man and woman, point blank. We do currently evolve, change physically over the generations to adapt to our environment and current societal needs, it is apparent constantly in our physique as generations progress. I am glad that someone else sees it as a bit of a gray area and not completely black and white as most. I have planted lots of seeds that didn't sprout, and I am still in awe of the ones that flourish. Here's just a personal question, Marcello, do you believe in God?
marcello (Apr 1, 2006)
Depends how strict you want to be in your definition of god, really.
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 2, 2006)
I am the least restrictive in my definition of God. I have been " preachin' to the choir", here
Miss_DJ (Apr 1, 2006)
very fine draw!

...just for da halibut, I'd just like to add that if a watch was in pieces on a table and all the pieces were there to make it a perfect watch, no matter how long it just 'sat there' it would NEVER become an actual working watch without some INTELLIGENT FORCE BEHIND IT TO MAKE IT SO. Even if you 'threw all the pieces together 'just so'' and they went BANG in the air...
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 2, 2006)
Couldn't have said it better myself. (Big BANG my ass, would be all I could come up with lol)
marcello (Apr 1, 2006)
That analogy doesn't relate to anything.
davincipoppalag (Apr 1, 2006)
What a great drawing, Joy. I like the beard part best.
comd (Apr 1, 2006)
Very nice - he's very 3-dimensional and the beard is fantastic.
solve (Apr 1, 2006)
Great likeness Opium. Wonderful work!
woah_pockster (Apr 2, 2006)
love love love <3
20ark (Apr 2, 2006)
He didn't found evolution, he just found it.
Opium (Apr 2, 2006)
Phew...that was quite some deep comments to read through! Thanks for your encouragement Cindy :) Thank you Miss DJ, poppa, comd, solve, whoa pockster, 20ark and xiau for your great comments! Glad you guys like it :)
Deino (edited Apr 2, 2006)
This person was truly an enlightened one! I do believe in evolution, and I'm facinated by its mechanics.(Note: I respect other points of view (: ). Very nice drawing opium :D
Opium (Apr 2, 2006)
Thanks Deino! :)
Artiste (Apr 2, 2006)
This is an excellent rendering of the man. I particularly like your sensitivity to the lights and darks of his beard.
Its well observed. (staying out of the creation vs. evolution debate.)

nice job Opium.
Opium (Apr 2, 2006)
Thanks alot Artiste :)
Zack (Apr 2, 2006)
This is cool. He looks like some ancient philosopher or scholar here. I really like the lighting on his brow and cheeks.
Childlike_Vampire (Apr 2, 2006)
Nobody's got it figured out. What I've figured out though, since I'm a better driver than everyone else on the road, is that Opium has got one hell of a likeness of Leonardo Da Vinci going on here. Looks just like 'em! ;P Great face, nice and soft.
Opium (Apr 3, 2006)
Thanks Zack! And vamp, is that a joke or does he look like DaVinci? Thanks for the comments :)
Miss_DJ (edited Apr 3, 2006)
Marcello, sorry you don't think the analogy relates to anything. But if you take the same analogy, and relate it to the Big Bang Theory...they say that all the substantial amounts of x, y and z were in the universe (watch parts on the table) when BANG! they formed the Earth..etc...well...I just say that without an Intelligent force behind those 'parts'....they would have simply hung around never forming in the same instance as the parts of the watch. I love the analogy...but it didn't originate with me, I'm just passing it on.
misterjimsan (Apr 3, 2006)
That's funny, I knew it was Darwin but I also thought it looked a lot like Da Vinci in that self portrait he did.
Opium (Apr 3, 2006)
yeah, I see davinci in it now too...both have a tired scholarly feeling to them
marcello (Apr 3, 2006)
Woah now DJ, we were talking about evolution, not astronomy. So I stick by the analogy not relating to anything. To address that, gravity (not to be confused with intelligent falling) is the idea of matter being attracted to other matter. That's the force behind how much of our solar system was formed. After all, the planets are simply made up of matter that was floating around as gas/plasma that collided with each other, eventually cooled down, and eventually solidified. There's even evidence from the Moon to support this theory (it is made out of the same components of the inner Earth, possibly by a large object colliding with the young forming Earth, and then trapped in the Earth's gravitational field and eventually formed the Moon).

Most of the planets we know about and understand something of their internal structure are formed in quite 'random' circumstances, and there's hardly anything "intelligent" about the composition of the Sun, Mercury, Venus, the Earth, Jupiter, and so on. The Big Bang theory does not say that the Earth just came out of no where, it took quite some time after the Big Bang before the Sun, and then even later than that, the Earth was formed.

The watch parts are hardly atomic pieces, and you cannot even think of construction of a watch in the same way. There's friction involved, and the sorts of things that are created out of random chance (planets, even lifeforms) are a lot different from how a watch is formed. There is nothing in the world that resembles many of the machines man has constructed. Which would lead one to assume that whatever 'intelligence' created the world is of a different sort than the 'intelligence' that humans possess. Keep in mind, after all, a machine could put the watch together, even though it lacks intelligence of any sort.

Still, it's not your analogy, so it doesn't really matter...
fleeting_memory (edited Apr 3, 2006)
I find it highly amusing that such a huge discussion came up over evolution over Darwin when the guy took the idea from an almost self appointed apprentice of his who had written his ideas to Darwin in a letter. Darwin ceased correspondence and less than one year later published his famous book on evolution, using the theories later found out in the letter. Scandelous! hehe

This is wonderfully done and truly deserves more actual comments than it is getting. The eyes are done wonderfully and I admire them especially since I always have such trouble with getting two to match each other.
Edit: Applause as well for all the wirey looking hair-very very nice :)
Opium (Apr 3, 2006)
haha thank you fleeting! I honestly had no idea that this picture would spur this on! None the less, if they want to talk about this here, I don't mind :) And you hit on a very small known fact of Darwin! But it was Wallace, I believe, that had thought up the idea also. There is no proof that Darwin or Wallace created the idea first, it's just known that Darwin published his book first, and Wallace was a little behind him. I like to live in my own little world and like to think it was a mutulistic effort on both parties, but that's me :)
Axil62 (Apr 3, 2006)
Maybe evolution was part of God's process of creation. Beautiful draw Opium.
Miss_DJ (Apr 3, 2006)
oo oo oo ok get this....let's use the watch theorum on a strand of DNA! How many times would you have to throw the watch parts into the air before it would 'become' a watch? By comparison, how can something as complicated as a single strand of DNA be formed without Intelligent design? Some people say that DNA just 'happened' to form by chance. I say that a single strand of DNA forming 'by chance' is as likely as the watch parts becoming a watch on the 1 millioneth time that were thrown together into the air. Wouldn't happen. Not without God. No matter how you see Him or don't...He still is. If you believe in Him, then do you believe when He calls Himself the Creator? I do. He did it. Maybe He chose to partly use evolution....since some things do evolve, it is because He created them to do so.
DeadlyBlondeArcher (Apr 3, 2006)
Sometimes I find that people of the very highest intelligence lack the common sense to see things that are obvious to the rest of us.
marcello (Apr 3, 2006)
Actually, DNA is incredibly simple. It's really not complicated at all. There's just a lot of it. Sure, it might be far-fetched to go from randomness/nothing to dna, but it didn't. A single form of DNA never formed "by chance" out of pieces. DNA is far from perfect (as are humans), so the whole concept of intelligent is a bit iffy. However, detailed Biology is going from my area of knowledge, so I can't really go into serious detail myself.

I never said that there was (or wasn't) a higher influence in the whole process, that's really beside the point. The point is it is entirely possible that what happened happened simply because of a fixed set of universal rules (which haven't been defined by anyone yet), and there was no metaphysical intervention.

There's no one saying that these supposed rules weren't created by some higher entity (for example, why is there gravity? no one can really answer that). Why is merely a philosophical debate. Science tries to explain the how, while religion tries to address the why.

The problem occurs when religion tries to address the how (such as with intelligent design). Mainly because it is often wrong (for example, the Church used to claim that everything orbits the Earth, would you like to discuss that one, too? ;) ). I personally think people should stop trying to use so-called "common sense," which, for the record, can also be quite wrong, to explain things they don't understand. (Besides, is it actually common sense? You were told something that you agreed with it. If no one ever mentioned intelligent design to you, would you have come to the same conclusion on your own?)

What bothers me is people who will take and assume things without even questioning the possibility of fault. While undeterred faith is cute and all, I think people should be allowed to think for themselves and interpret things as they will. I could say lightning is caused by gods rubbing their feet on the clouds as they walk over them. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but you shouldn't blindly believe it. You should take a bite, chew on it a while, swish it around your mouth, and see if you like the flavor. But even then, even if you swallow it, you should understand that maybe the next bite won't be as good and you'll take it for what it is.

Damn, my posts are getting longer and longer. I could use some Intelligent Editing.
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 3, 2006)
I have never believed anything just because someone told me it was so. I have been 'tasting' things for quite a few years now. The fact that you will say that faith in God is 'cute', and that you sound like an agnostic [which is quite non-committal either way] made me realize that debating this here will make me more exhausted than I initially thought it would. I can't help it that you're a little genius and you will spend years over-thinking the whole thing before you come to a conclusion.

I am ending my comments here with this - Faith is, in fact, the key word.

oh, sorry, just one more thing...I can answer your question about 'why' there is gravity. God put it here to keep your ass from flying out into space. There, blonde logic versus genius.
davincipoppalag (Apr 3, 2006)
All the science is fascinating. But, to me, no matter how detailed and comprehensive a scientific explanation gets, it cannot give me the answer to the question: Where did the matter, conditions, and processes from which everything was formed come from? You can't make bread without flour.It had to start somewhere. Therein lies the mystery.
Gigandas (Apr 3, 2006)
Who knows.....maybe we're like, the cells of a larger being...! That would be pretty cool if something along those lines were true.
Miss_DJ (Apr 4, 2006)
I think it's interesting that you assume that you're the only one that's 'chewed' on your ideas, Marcello. Just because I believe as I do doesn't mean that I decided to blindly. Your statement..."Science tries to explain the how, while religion tries to address the why." is not an original one....oooo should I turn around what you just said here..."You were told something that you agreed with it. If no one ever mentioned intelligent design to you, would you have come to the same conclusion on your own?)

Well, anyway...I didn't come to this draw to debate God, Dna or watches....I think I will 'evolve' to another realm of consiousness and move on from this pointless debate.

marcello (Apr 4, 2006)
Fair enough, I just don't get that the impression. As for my personal beliefs, I have not mentioned these in this discussion at all. My personal bias would write a completely different story, but in the point of discussion, to get to the truth you must set aside personal bias. For the record, my comment about how and why is my own and I've never heard it used before. You cannot turn my comment about common sense. It is not my belief that everything can be explained by common sense, I was simply making the point that your reasoning of "common sense" is more along the lines of "suggested sense."

I am merely trying to explain my interpretation of the logic that millions of people believe and understand. Darwin's theory was (hell, still is) pretty damned controversial, and there's nothing wrong with his hypothesizing something different from the norm. You don't have to accept it, but it's pretty damned rude to dismiss it.

I disagree with the comment that agnostic is non-committal. People who are agnostic logically believe that it is impossible to know whether there is a/are god(s) or not (I have not seen any undeniable acts of gods, thus how can I know there is one?). When it comes down to most everyday living, it doesn't really matter whether gods exist.

As for god being the "why" in gravity. That's exactly my point, religion seeks to explain stuff like that. And I will not disagree with the possibility that "god" created the law of gravity, and everything that's happened happened because it adheres to that. Personally, my belief though is that if this is the case, god created the most basic and simple rules possible (possibly, just one single simple rule), and everything developed from there. That to me would be much more elegant and beautiful than god going and creating each individual creature. Especially if the result is the same.

Personally I am no agnostic, nor have I spent "years over-thinking the whole thing" before coming to a conclusion. In fact, it only took a few weeks, and completely offguard/unexpected to come to a conclusion. I doubt my personal philosophies or religious views would be understood (since they're based on much less logic than the points I've made thus far), so I see little reason to explain them.

As for chewing I was more specifically referring to my comment about gods and lightning. Don't you think that's a cool idea? I can just imagine them in the socks with a mug of coffee wandering around, too lazy to pick up their feet. Hell that's what I'd do if I were a god...
Zack (Apr 4, 2006)
It strikes me as quite rude to leave controversial remarks in a comment, argue for a bit when someone inevitably challenges them, and then proclaim the entire endeavor pointless and act like the bigger person by moving on. Quite rude indeed.

I'm down with what Dave said, though.
BlitzCloud (edited Apr 4, 2006)
Great drawing. But like others say, i do not agree with the title: The founder of the evolution. You dont find or start the evolution -.-

Its easy. I will always remember soemthing that happened in a meeting of important people. One of them spoke about this relation between humans and apes, saying that they are our "parientes" (like we both come from the same family), that was answered by one representant of the church that said: well, yours might be... mines aren't.

It's funny how people won't notice that theres a real big difference between an ape and a human (although it cant be said about all humas). We have reasonabilty, and they haven't... Not the same we have. And what are they trying to say, that ones evolved and developed his mental abilities and the other continues throwing poop to the windows, and keep saying we have relation with them?

2draw, btw is 2-draw... not 2-science. So basically stfu!

PD: joking xD
Axil62 (Apr 4, 2006)
I bet it was a thing where there was all these dots see, and then they were all going around and some of them turned into lines and then they got all mixed up.
Maiko (Apr 4, 2006)
I believe that evolution is something designed by God to help us adapt :3

anyway, the picture is quite nice, although, I think his skin looks a little too hmm...plastic-y?
might want to put some textures or something...
DeadlyBlondeArcher (edited Apr 4, 2006)
ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Relating to or being an agnostic.
Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).

It means both things.

Perhaps you are not an agnostic, since you did not commit here to a belief in God [or not], it made you sound like one.

I also understand what you are saying about common sense... what I meant by that is I think that believing everything happened out of 'chance', 'intelligent falling', etc., seems quite unlikely if not impossible, therefore it doesn't make sense to me.

I think it's perfectly fine that you question and research everything, and that you keep an open mind about the whole thing. It is pointless to stay here and argue that there 'is' a God with someone who says, yes, there could be, maybe there is, maybe there isn't. That was the only reason I mentioned 'agnostic'. We aren't going to know the answers to everything here, neither religion or science is going to tell us. I think it would be cooler if thunder were angels bowling.

Gigandas (edited Apr 4, 2006)
I agree with DBA. It's pointless to argue over this. Beliefs are usually 'beliefs' cause they aren't easily converted.

Zack (in response to your post below)- It would kinda be hard to tell people that it's pointless to argue over the situation through some telekenesis.
Zack (edited Apr 4, 2006)
Maybe those who think it's pointless to talk about this should stop talking about this. Maybe that would make sense. :0

Either way, it'd be best if further discussion on the topics of religion, evolution, etc moved to forum threads on the subjects at this point. A little digression is okay, but if you really want to discuss the issues a forum would be most appropriate.
Opium (Apr 4, 2006)
I don't mind Zack, it's the most comments I've had on a piece so far! :) hehe thanks for the comments Axil and Maiko! I might go ahead and fix that, it had a little more texture in one of the stages of the drawing watching the animation, and I liked it, just sorta went over it and forgot about it...let me do that...oh, and change the description
Opium (Apr 4, 2006)
drawn in 6 min
Miss_DJ (Apr 4, 2006)
I agree that this isn't the best or most appropriate place to discuss it. That's why I said it was pointless to discuss it any further in here. I didn't mean it as a rude statement. I was, on the contrary, trying to leave the discussion with a little to not beat a dead horse with any more comments on the subject, at least from myself. hey and by the way...a very nice draw!
Opium (Apr 4, 2006)
haha thanks Miss DJ :)
marcello (Apr 4, 2006)
In conclusion, I think this is a good drawing, but I wish it were larger...
Axil62 (Apr 4, 2006)
I bet it was a thing where there was all these dots see, and then they were all going around and some of them turned into lines and then they got all mixed up.

I didn't mean that's how I think the drawing was done, I meant maybe that's how the universe was done.
patienceisoverrated (Apr 4, 2006)
I like the skin texture you added. I like his wrinkles, too.... people with wrinkles are intresting to draw. It's like, all their life experiences and feelings and whatever are written on their faces.
Sweetcell (Apr 4, 2006)
I think you can be a believer of both, and I am. Being Roman Catholic myself I learned about His creation and evolution, and it's funny it seemed easy for me to blend the two, meld it if you will. I believe He exists and created the Earth and everything around us, but I also believe in the Big Bang and evolution... hmmmm maybe that makes me a bit by-polar. That would explain things.

You can have Creation and Evolution, I believe it. Maybe someone just needs to find the middle where both fits.

Awesome piece Opium, love that hair. He does look tired.....
gerbear (Apr 5, 2006)
Excellent portrait! Very impressed with it.
Opium (Apr 5, 2006)
Thanks Marcello, patience, sweetcell, and gerbear! :)
Opium (Apr 29, 2006)
drawn in 37 sec
post comment
You need to be logged in to post a comment. If you don't have an account, sign up now!
Like 2draw? Rate and install 2draw on the Chrome Web Store!