truefusion

These problems aren't really that big of a problem; when compared to other problems. Though, before we can talk about one thing, we have to do research on it. I have a quote that you might find interesting, There are arguments for a reason. Once we understand the reason for these arguments, we can better comprehend the actions that come from them. You have to be willing, and look at the world in the other person's view. There is little neutrality, if not, none in certain things. I believe it is (almost) impossible to be neutral. But we are looking at arguments that may have, or may promote bad outcomes. Many arguments are there to promote a change for the good. If saving a life means arguing with someone, then i'm all for it. Many religions argue (debate) in this way -- in hope for the better. Just like this topic might have been made for . Though, some arguments may get out of hand, that may have not been the intention. In Islam, we see that a Muslim should spread the truth and not keep it hidden (Sura 2:42). This may contradict some Christian beliefs. In Christianity, we see that Christians are told to something similar (Matthew 28:19-20). Again, depending on how these things are done, may cause conflict. We can all agree on many things, but not everything.

Sometimes all of these methods don't work. I remember having a troublesome file that wouldn't wanna get deleted. I've tried all of the above in order to delete the file, but none of them worked. But i managed to delete it anyways. It was funny in the end.Though, now i'm having a problem with an empty folder! It amazes me on how an empty folder can be in use.

Interesting work with the colors. It's like the 'colorless' side is winning against the colorful side, and that warrior is helping out the colorful side. Though, the lack of color on one side gives me an odd feeling, an imbalance. I also think the sig could use more work on lighting.7.9/10

Isn't bacteria life? Aren't they organisms as well? Aren't they on the web of life, along with us? But what would that mean if they are a form of life? Would it mean that the earth was stable enough for life to live in? Would that mean that other lifeforms were created along with bacteria? I guess no matter how you look at something, you're bound to have unanswered questions.

There is no 'explaination' that is considered a fact on how the universes were created (that is outside any Holy Book).

To be honest, it could be better. For example, on the text, apply anti-aliasing so you won't have that jagged edge on it. Also, make the sig a bit smaller in height, by like 25px. Add a 1px border to the sig. And if possible, make the renders take up more space, and work with the text so it takes up the rest of the space.

Well, you can try Adobe Premiere. It does what you want. However, so does Windows Movie Maker .

I always get an out-of-place feeling whenever the border doesn't go all the way around, but that's just me. Anyways, i think the text would be better off flat. And maybe fix up that pink spot near the hand.

I think the render could take up a bit more space. But nice blending on the render. The text seems a bit sharp on the curves, anti-alias would do nicely here. It's also a bit too empty near the top right. I'd rate this sig 6.7/10.

The green seems out of place for me. Maybe if you switched it to white, and for the rest of the text, switched it to a bluish-grey.

http://us3.php.net/manual/en/function.mail.php Informs you how for multiple contacts:

I voted for Ken. I find him easier to play with than Ryu. I found Ryu to be a bit slow when it comes to punches, kicks, and combos. I always make sure i have Ken on my team when playing any [title] vs [title] game (e.g. Marvel vs Capcom).

I've messed around with this program before. It's very good. It's supposed to be something like the free alternative to Dreamweaver.

I say, cut off a little from the black part on the left side, so it can seem similar to the right side. Hmm, there's not much advice i can give for this kind of sig; aside from what has already been mentioned.

Here you go. Enjoy.

[1]Why did you direct me to information on expeditions to Mount Ararat? That's not where i was talking about. [2]There are multiple counter-explanations to these explanations. It can, basically, go either way. The "duplicates" mentioned in the source given, weren't exact duplicates, however. They required extra work in order to bring about just an image, but still couldn't match up to the actual shroud. [3]When did i say shrimps lived for 40 years, or why did you mention that? And it's a possibility that their body shape can revert back. If they evolved cause of one simple change in their environment, they would evolve back into their old selves, if the environment would change back into how it was before. Since shrimp eat algae, a bigger supply of it would mean much more healthier shrimp, in this case a better body shape. It's like when a person eats. If a person eats mostly fatty foods, they're bound to get fat. Or if a person sticks to a healthy diet, they're bound to stay lean. As for pollutants, i believe all animals have an immune system. This is where microevolution takes place. If the pollutants weren't strong enough, and they "infected" the shrimps at a slow rate, their (the shrimps') immune systems would be able to defend against the attack, and in turn gain more experience. And with all this algae, it makes the shrimps' immune system more able to fend off foreign attacks. I think the case with Darwin's finches is similar (about reverting back). [4]I choose not to call it "the Shroud of Turin," because i don't believe Turin, Italy is of its origin. P.S. What about the Pharoah's body?

[1]You're putting words "in my mouth". I said the icons of evolution has been refuted, not evolution as an entirety.[2]Every now and then i see these icons appear whenever a discussion about evolution appears. These incomplete evidences shouldn't be enough to be bringing up theories, cause the theories will be incomplete. And maybe the evidence isn't against it anymore. [3]Evolution does follow a book. Infact many colleges have these books. [4]Then explain to me the Pharoah's body that was found in the location that the book of Moses, Exodus, said it would be, which is in some museum. Explain the linen cloth that was wrapped around Jesus's dead body that no-one has been able to make a duplicate of, which is in some church. Explain to me the discovery of Noah's Ark, which is being studied by archaeologists. Abrahamic religions are historically accurate, and the evidence proves it. [5]They can't speed up the process? [6]Anything can adapt. Like human, when they eat a lot, may become fat, depending on what they eat. Or like someone exercising, they shape muscles. For the shrimp in Germany, remove most of these pollutants and algae, and you may see these shrimp revert to their old selves. [7]Likewise for Abrahamic religious evidences. [8]However, the adaptations to the species will only last as long as the environment remains to be abnormal. Which can't really be forever, unless it's handled otherwise.

Evolution (decent with modification, aka Darwinism) is a religion. Ever since all icons of evolution have been refuted, the only people that continue to believe in them are those that stick to the books. I can show many similarities that Darwinists have with other religions. One of which is: they all have a book they follow. Unfortunately, most of these books they follow are outdated. Many biologists know that these things are no longer to be taken into consideration. These "evidences" never really supported the claims that Darwinists state. However, they were made to seem like they did. Also, you seem to be forgetting the evidences Abrahamic religions have. Because of which, the books they follow are believed to be true. And they take all of it into consideration. Microevolution is more believable because it's more observable. However, they haven't evolved into anything (something visible with the naked eye) before our eyes yet, nor do they seem like they will. The only form of macroevolution i am willing to take into consideration is the aging process. "Decent with modification," the way Darwin(ists) explain(s) is unthinkable, and are just theories piled upon other theories. The only true information we have is on these microscopic organisms. I can fully consider microevolution without having to fully consider macroevolution.

Animals aren't gay naturally. They aren't really gay period. Just cause you see an animal having sexual intercourse with the same sex, doesn't mean it's gay. Animals have sexual urges. When that kicks in, they'll have sexual intercourse with whatever. Even a mop (yes, a mop, i bore witness to it; it was hilarious, but weird). It's not being gay, it's just a strong desire to have sex. Try not to blame one person for many. Not everyone takes everything into account. It's possible, even if it doesn't seem like it. Common sense is usually learned. If you never told a child stealing is bad, or if the child never knew about stealing, what would happen? Sorry, but most things are learned, yes this includes morality. Sometimes, the kid inflicting the pain doesn't stop unless forced to. Like for your quote "OW OW", this declares the kid got whacked twice. If it hurt the first time, you'd figure the kid in pain would stop the second "attack," but maybe they weren't expecting a second "attack". And it looks like the kid dealing the damage didn't take the first "OW" into consideration. Since "OW" is in all caps the kid shouted. Maybe it was some bully that over powered a kid. Different story now, huh? It's the law in other places. It may not be in your area, but don't limit things. I don't believe it's based on cookies. Only one way to find out right? But, if it's not based on cookies, then sweet! Go for the "no"'s! :)P.S. Tested it, it's not based on cookies. No warning needed.

[1]Yes you did. To be precise, you said "physical evolution". To me, that's basically the same thing as macro-evolution. Since they were primitive in physical evolution. Did you mean something else? If so, please specify, so i can get a better understanding.[2]Actualy, no, this topic is more than fine for it, that it is practically perfect for it. The theory of evolution has turned into a religion. Although, i like to think, ever since Darwin brought it up (again), it was a religion. [3]I only rebuke macro-evolution. I take into consideration, however, micro-evolution. [1]Yes, yes it would be. [2]Indeed. [3]I think we should keep an open mind to an extent. Always keeping an open mind is not a good thing, i believe. Nor do i think it's possible. But, there's more things to be discussing rather than religion.

Yeah, i'll enter. I'll edit this post with my entry later. Guess i'll work hard on mine, too. xP

Good question! However, i like to point out a few things, and even declare a theory. Although, this theory of mine can't/may not be proven, many other theories are out there that can't/may not be proven either, yet they continue to keep alive. So, why not one more? Anyways, moving on... One thing i gotta point out, God said, let there be [this], and boom a universe came into existence, so why can't the same thing happen for humans, only without the boom ? According to the theory of evolution, monkeys would have to had come first. Now, that would mean, God would have to have said something for monkeys to come into existence. Now, i ask, what's so hard about creating humans through the word, if everything else can be created through the word? Ok, now for my theory, in hopes to provide something for your question. Although, there is no proof of what kind of skin color Adam or Eve had, that does not mean, they were both caucasian, even if many Bible movies show them both as caucasian. If either one had dark(er) skin, over a period of time, the possibility of genetic diversity can occur. You may declare this as evolution if you want. But, it has nothing to do with monkeys. Hope this is helpful.

Either way, friend A's sister is gonna get asked out, according to what i've read. But, it all comes down to whether you really like her or not. Are you falling for her cause of her looks (e.g. cuteness) or cause of who she is? If it's cause of who she is, then do you believe you'll be a better partner than friend B? However, if you're falling for her cause of her looks, then i advise against the intended action. Although, there are many other factors i'm not talking about, these other factors can be taken care of over time. But, before you go on asking her out, i advise you think over your feelings for her.

I'm not aware if you tried the tutorials on the GIMP's website. But.. https://www.gimp.org/tutorials/

While keeping with web standards, the height property does not support percentages.