truefusion

Your problem doesn't sound like any operating system i know of. The mention of a shortcut key followed by some kind of tabbed interface only causes more ambiguity. In order to help, more information is required.

If i'm not mistaken, the only section in the GFXTrap section that has a no post count is the sigs forum—most of the others should generate credit. The reason was due to low post quality from most members that post there. To make it count posts again and generate credit, we would have to evaluate current postings from most of the recent posts (which could go as back as a few months) and see if the posting quality has improved to a level of acceptance. Posting an image and saying, "Can i get some feedback?" is not a quality post. Members that come from other graphics forums into this one tend to not have much to say (as a lot of times there really isn't much to say about an image or work of art), so deeper motivation for quality posts is bound to be required for the sigs section.Concerning moving the GFXTrap forum up, for consistency's sake, you would have to move up the entire "Xisto Network" section—which i kind of agree should be done. I think the "Xisto Network" section should be placed under the "Main" section.

Does this mean that double posting when a user wants to edit and add something to their post is permissible (though they should request for a merge)? If so, does that bear the same dilemma as having unlimited editions? I am interested in the problems caused by spammers.

[1] The definition i have been arguing from the start would be what can be found in verb number 3, which is wholly applicable, and i would say is the most relevant. But even if this topic did exist, it does not entail that you would believe in evolution and creationism and therefore mention such. That is why the forums are irrelevant, because your belief is not dependent on the forums. While you don't have to publicly support something to believe in it, that is irrelevant, because you do believe in bothâÂÂeven if it isn't 100%. I've already mentioned a long time ago that my original statement is not restricted to public support. Of course, i cannot know about your belief without you first mentioning it, but you did, which is why i said you support them, because a belief always has support. You said you don't have to support something to believe it, but that is redirecting the issue, because support isn't restricted to publicity. You already stated that you believe in it, that is all that needs to be said to prove what i have been saying. [2] I'll repeat myself but with emphasis: Hence, while "crusade" may concern reaching a goal, the obvious goal of the Crusades was to regain landâÂÂthere is no mention of it being for the sake of conversion.

Permissions in this case are file system specific and don't deal with the contents of the file. In your FTP program (if any), for example FileZilla, locate the file in question and right-click on the file and pick "File Permissions." For the numeric value, type in 777. If you are using cPanel, in the file manager just highlight the file and click on "Change Permissions" and check all the boxes.

[1] This is a forum, but that is irrelevant. Beliefs aren't stated publicly if you weren't already personally convinced of it. [2] But the purpose you have suggested bears no historical evidence.

Wait till you get to the other stages (which you have most likely already gotten to by now). I beat the campaign while at a friend's house on his Xbox 360, and beat several Special Ops missions. I like how the campaign isn't centered around one specific location. It was interesting to see that some of the missions were in America, especially the wanna-be Burger King fast food restaurant. The game seems a bit harder than the first Modern Warfare game—though it could just be that i am better with mouse and keyboard than with a console controller. I hear the multiplayer side for PC has around an 80% chance of coming across someone who is cheating using hacks. People are also exploiting some glitches and some features of the game, like the javelin glitch and the care package grenade "trick," et cetera. I can't remember, but i think they've made the akimbo 1887 shotguns more realistic in one of the new patches—but you'll have to verify that. Modern Warfare 2 is an awesome game, but multiplayer for PC, i hear, is degrading.

It took the timestamps to get me out of confusion, too. However, it appears to be bottom-to-top now. At first i was like, "Why is the scroll bar at the bottom? It should be at the top." But it is because the shouts are displaying from bottom to top.

I visited your site and could not find the visual problem you have experienced. So, is it safe to assume that you have fixed the problem?

If this pertains to Christmas alone, why say "Happy Holidays"? "Happy Holidays" invites other celebrations within the same time. If it is said "Happy Holidays" to not be insulting or to be politically correct, isn't that countered by the fact that only Christmas is mentioned?Anyway, Merry Christmas! Let us not forget the reason why Christmas is celebrated: what Christ Jesus did for us.

[1] Your statement here says "personally." Context shows it is on a personal level, therefore my self-argument is relevant. [2] I do not deny the things common of war (like killing, siege, et cetera); what i said was mentioned to show that there is no historical evidence that the violence was for the sake of conversion (as you mentioned here). On a whole other note, you, again, didn't surround the material copied from an external source (in this case Wikipedia) within quote bbcode. Final verbal warning: Read number 8, look over the bbcode list on what is available and their usage. [1] Definition in biology: hence why i said it is better to state the "theory of evolution," since "evolution" is "change over time," which encompasses more than the theory of evolution. I can answer "yes" to every one of those question you provided, but since "evolution" encompasses more than the theory of evolution, it does not follow that i believe the theory of evolution is true, especially since your questions only touch on the possibilities of things, not things that have actually occurred. Since your questions do not entail that these things actually did occur, i can wholly agree while still denying the theory of evolution. [2] I've already told you the differences, you merely have to show which one is the case. The "can't prove a negative" mentality that is implied here will always be impractical, regardless of context. Proving one denies the other, since they are mutually exclusive at their core (in about every other area they are mutual). If one proves creationism, then it does prove evolution false, for as mentioned before, they are mutually exclusive at their core. Likewise, all evidence is interpreted. This means that proving creationism forces people to look at the evidence in a different light. But "in REALITY:" are not arguments for God or creationism said in reality? And this evidence you speak of, you mean those little mutations that have yet to amount to anything to the extent of the theory of evolution as a whole? And from what i've been seeing in medical journals has been totally unbeneficial to the species, for why else would there be medicine and the like to fight things off? Natural selection? From what is observable, the species (not just humans) should have died a long time ago. [3] [3.1] My logic? I've already previously mentioned i was using your form of reasoning. So what do i have now? I have a closer look on the reasons why you believe metaphysical things do not exist. From what i can gather, you are limiting "existence" to only physical things, while providing no justification for such an assumption (presupposition). While i've never seen the "laws of thermodynamics" state that anything without kinetic energy does not exist (since that would be impractical), kinetic energy is energy in "motion." That means if it is not in motion, then there is no kinetic energy. That means anything, whether physical or metaphysical, would not therefore exist without kinetic energy. But while we humans use words to reference things, even if they are ideas, it does not mean that because they are metaphysical that they don't exist. Granted, our minds normally cannot fully understand infinite things, especially since a lot of our words place limitations on these infinite things, though it is illogical to do so. You can't say "without space," because space is a void, and it is infinite: space - space = space. You can "take up" space, but you'll still be left with an infinite amount of space, even if you can't use the "remaining portion" (be it because of lack of oxygen or what-have-you). Because you can "take up" space, we know this void exists, for how else would you be able to "take up" space? Metaphysical things, however, need not be limited to space alone; for, indeed, space isn't the only metaphysical thing. [4] By quoting the word "mind," you are implying acknowledgment of its metaphysical nature. But my argument for its metaphysical nature is a process of elimination, so you'll have to explain what you mean or intend with the word "prove."

[1] My point was that personal conviction (i.e. belief) is an argument with the self, especially if it involves skepticism, even if it isn't explicit. [2] Debates will happen even if anything could be definitely proven. And while i realize the assumption within my argument concerning God's existence, the only thing missing to make it definite is proving that matter isn't eternal. [3] The following statement can be found in Wikipedia: [1] This argument is too general to conclude the theory of evolution, for even if we did agree, it doesn't follow that everything the theory of evolution suggests happened. Obviously DNA will change, otherwise we would all look the same—would that be creepy to you? "Evolution" is a general term as well; when referencing the theory of evolution, it is best to use the term "theory of evolution." [2] The only difference between the theory of evolution and creationism is one claims common ancestry and the other claims individual creation. I have provided a couple of examples in this topic to show similarities—whether or not you read over these examples, however, is beyond me. [3] I'll use your line of reasoning to show this: Deny the existence of space. You can't? Then you agree that metaphysical things exists. For a mature form of reasoning, i normally use the argument that shows mind is over matter (which is normally within the context of whether or not free will exists).

[1] Belief does not necessarily imply lack of evidence, or else i cannot say that you (plural) believe in it, for some outside influence had to have convinced you (plural) of the truth of a matter—whether or not this outside influence is or bears concrete evidence. [2] It can be concluded that God is conscious, capable of thought, acting, and is powerful, just like i have been so doing within this topic. I can't remember the other examples you talked about (though i could take the time to go back). [3] Yes, it is easy to claim that Christianity (or any religion) is founded upon or spread due to the rhetoric "believe or be killed," but i cannot say it is easy to claim such a thing because of any evidence that has been provided. Certainly such a position would help spread Christianity if people gave into fear, and, certainly, war will always contain violence, but what research i have done on the Crusades has not suggested anything concerning "believe or be killed." One of the reasons why i ask for evidence is due to the fact that telling others to go do the research themselves does not necessarily yield the same evidence or conclusions as was mentioned by the one with the claim. Therefore pointing out an objective source is preferred or required. [4] By "in quotes" i did not mean quotation marks—i realized only some time after posting the ambiguity of that phrase, as it is usually common knowledge here at the forums on what is meant by "in quotes." I asked you to list them, but since the rules do not allow generic, extensive lists to be listed outside of the quote bbcode (you did imply that your evidence was enough to be convincing), i advised in advance for you to put them within quotes (i.e. quote bbcode), since a previous time you quoted me you didn't use quote bbcode, implying that you did not fully read the rules. But it turns out your list isn't significant enough for the rules to apply. While you may believe it to not be the case, the burden of proof is on you to show deliberate textual alterations or modifications. If you do not seek to back up your claims or assertions, then i cannot say that any actual fact was stated by you. My intention in requesting for the evidence that has apparently convinced you was to verify whether or not you are taking something small and making it something big. The burden of proof need not be placed, nor the work of digging out the evidence, on the reader; it is not work required of the reader. As for the two pages you provide (which from your post sounds like not the actual list that has convinced you personally): The Yahoo! Answers one, out of all of the responses given, the only one that gave something i can trace back to is the one chosen by the asker; others basically say something similar to what you have been saying, which is really not evidence for anything. Number 1 is irrelevant for deliberate alteration, as it concerns translations and not the manuscripts that these translations are based on. Number 2 i can't really conclude deliberate alteration due to Revelation 7:4. Number 3, concerning 1 John 5:7, that can only be said concerning some manuscripts that were written after the 13th century (not for anything before the 14th century); for the ending of Mark 16, the Gospel of Matthew and Luke mention the same thing, and it cannot be said that Matthew and Luke took from Mark here due to the dates, so it cannot be said that it should lose credibility. For number 4 no verse is provided but it appears to be Luke 2:7, but the Greek in question is "kataluma" (Strongs 2646) and this word can be rendered as "inn," "guest room," et cetera—so it does exist; and if i misunderstood the person, well, i have no way of knowing. Number 5 is irrelevant for the same reason as number 1. Concerning the BBC news article, i am not surprised that they would mention Bart Ehrman, since i have noticed (from past instances) that the BBC isn't a good source for objective theology. But i have not read the Shepard of Hermas to see if it was proper to exclude it, and i have only read the first chapter of the Epistle of Barnabas (note, not the Gospel of Barnabas, which i have read, which cannot be attributed to Barnabas in any way, in case anyone thinks both writings are the same). However, many of the translations today of the Biblical texts do not rely on one source or manuscript. Yes, the Codex Sinaiticus is helpful, but other sources deal with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, references found in the writings of the early church fathers, fragments of manuscripts (normally referenced by a combination of a letter and a number, for example, P52), et cetera. And what little textual variation can be found normally deals with one or a few of words, which one may have to consider the style of writing to get an accurate reading or if such textual variations illustrate false information if placed in or left out, not pages worth of textual variation that could indeed be considered significant. If it were pages worth, i cannot say that it would have gotten as far as it has today. Therefore Biblical credibility can in no way be wholly lost, for that would be hasty generalization. But i find it odd to say that the Codex Sinaiticus challenges today's Bible, as either collection of writings would have relied on similar—if not the very same—sources. [5] I would argue that the only parts that would lose credibility would be the parts that are shown to be inaccurate, not the entire work itself. [6] Both lead to the same matter—merely paraphrased.

For GRUB, just invoke the grub-set-default command. For more information on it, go here: link.

My argument relies on the fact that it is physically impossible for there to be a physical process behind every physical process. For every physical process you would be asking, "Well, what caused this to move?" I don't believe anyone can show me that this physical impossibility does exist. If you say, "Why do we even have to consider this?" it is because since you (plural) do not allow for our own thoughts to be ran by a metaphysical entity, it follows that neither can anything else. Therefore you are "forced" accept something metaphysical. At this point you (plural) could try claiming just about any metaphysical force; however, that won't do. Not every metaphysical force or entity can be argued to have a conscious—a conscious is required to have a will or desire. While this may potentially be the spot in my argument that it starts to lose ground, due to whether or not it is us or some higher entity doing the willing for us, we can safely assume that we ourselves are conscious entities, for you cannot perceive without a perceiver. Therefore either definition which you provided will allow for free will in any instance. For even if it were the case that you (plural) are not controlling your actions, you (plural), as a conscious entity, would perceive this to be true. But since you do not perceive this to be true, that is, seriously, you would "have to" accept that we have a conscious and that conscious is metaphysical and our conscious is what guides our bodies (at least in so far as it is capable of "responding" to us).

Concerning both movies i saw, i managed to track down what little information i could find about them. For the haunted house one, according to the source i found (which claimed to have personally interviewed the very same family), from all the things the movie showed, i would say about 15% of it did occur. For the possessed girl, i couldn't find much information about her, but multiple spirits and psychological abnormalities did occur.

Why not just call xterm? If you are trying to make your own terminal, i would suggest looking at the source code of xterm.

[1] Yes, it requires a conscious if it is not guided. You say energy into matter is how the universe works; however, that is to say that it is guided, since i doubt you'd argue that the "laws of physics" are broken and are never in use. The fact that things happen is because they were set in motion, even if they weren't "pushed" per se; if they were never in motion and if they had no conscious, they would never do anything. [2] Though i should probably ask rvalkass, would you happen to know what is the fastest motion a particle can move at before our technology appears to become inaccurate? I know i did not ask that properly, but i have no idea how to ask the question i want to ask, but it runs along the lines of whether or not this disappearing and reappearing act could be due to technological limitations. [1] It is because of that definition, and that definition alone, energy being the amount of work that can be performed, that i can understand it being "eternal," at least in the sense that it implies energy being metaphysical; but as the quotation marks suggest, it is not truly eternal, because that definition allows for the possibility of energy not existing—this by the word "can." The definition energy not being able to be created or destroyed, i cannot see it allowing for the possibility of energy not existing, since it already assumes that energy exists. I should mention that the term "work" in the definition of energy may bear a definition that is counter-intuitive. That is, when i think about work, i think about an object making an effort. For example, if i were to drop a ball to the ground from shoulder height, i wouldn't say that the ball did any work; i would say that i and "gravity" are doing the work. But science may state that the ball falling is "kinetic energy." [2] The definition you provided for mass, in order for mass to remain constant the particles themselves would have to be eternal and never changing. For example, a neutron decaying into a proton, the proton would have less mass. If energy cannot be created or destroyed, it follows that the particles cannot be created—it has to come from things already in existence. I think the problem in understanding, then, may come from ambiguity of the word "system." [3] I think the misunderstanding comes from when i mentioned the purple outline. The purple outline of the spiky object i realize implies that the empty space within the object should be included within the volume. But that is why i showed the third image, inside the object, to counter that implication. It was not my intention to declare that the empty space within the object should be considered as part of the volume of the object. [1] But a belief is a personal conviction, therefore not requiring public promotion. [2] Repetition of and dependence on those examples is, however, part of your argument. Discussions need not be halted or not started because we can't do a certain something. Nevertheless, from the examples you gave, many of them can be addressed. [3] Winning such a battle for land would give it more opportunities to promote Christianity, but acceptance of Christianity is on a personal level. It just so happens to be the case that Christianity is the most accepted position today. [4] List (in quotes) all the times it has been revised and "picked through." [5] If they were burned, you would not know of their existence today without some recorded evidence. However, many of the gospels not found in the New Testament which can be read today (of whatever traces of them we have) are in complete contradiction or is in connection with these contradicting gospels. For example, the Gospel of Thomas links with the Gospel of Mary. The Gospel of Mary contradicts monotheism; the Gospel of Judas also contradicts monotheism; both of which are Gnostic in their nature. I have read multiple gospels not found in the New Testament, and i can safely say that leaving these gospels out was a good decision. [6] The Councils of Nicaea (first, second, and any others) were not a council done to formulate what is to be included in the Bible. Rather, the Bible was already formed.

Predictions do not eliminate free will, nor is there such a thing as a physical process or force behind every physical process and force. For that reason you have to acknowledge that our conscious is at least metaphysical. In other words, any chemical process is a by-product or side effect of your consciousness: you willed, it followed. However, the problem with these discussions is that everyone is assuming a definition for "free will" and have not declared it explicitly, which may very well show by its definition that free will, no matter the scenario, is always present. Take for example if one says that "free will" means "to have a choice in the matter," what if we bring in an all-knowing being? Could you argue that you did not have a choice in the matter just because the all-knowing being knew what choice you were going to make? The all-knowing being didn't make the choice for you; there's no such thing as a physical process behind every physical process; so who made the choice for you except yourself? Therefore, in this case, even with there being an all-knowing entity, you would still have free will.If you wish to discuss this any further, at least attempt to define "free will" explicitly first, or else we will go in circles. I personally would label it as "to have a choice in the matter," even if this may be a simplified definition and even though i may seek something more sophisticated, but, believe it or not, i have not done much thinking on this subject.

You may also want to look into QTractor. Seems like a professional looking product, though only available for Linux due to audio framework dependencies.

[1] M'ks, the only way i can make sense of this is to assume that energy bears many definitions that can only be determined by context and therefore is not safe to always assume that mass and energy are one in the same but that it is subject to the conditions presented in the discussion. For that reason, since energy is not something that is necessarily physical, i can see why one can declare that energy is eternal, for it appears to relate to at least the concept of energy and not necessarily to any physical entity. Okay, so energy is "eternal" in that sense. Now i feel it is safe to go back to one of the points i was trying to initially make, that the particles themselves do not last forever—though this time i am not assuming that the particles themselves are energy. From what is mentioned, then, i should be able to safely mention that without something existing that can "make an effort," that is, make use of the "energy that is locked up within," that therefore there would be no such thing as energy, since energy appears to be relative to something already in existence. [2] So volume need not be an attribute of an object? I always thought the definition of volume was how much space an object takes up. Either way, in my previous post i did mention that the space within the object is not taken up, so i don't understand why you introduced enclosure. It is obvious, though, that an object with more particles in it will take up more space, which implies an increase in volume, at least by definition, but the formula for the volume of the object may show no increase. [1] I read that article before replying with my previous post—not to say that i have overcome the battle of the definitions. [2] I am not sure where you got that from my statement, but i don't necessarily agree with potential and kinetic energy. But, unless i'm mistaken, science does allow for the transfer of energy and that your statement touches upon E=mc2. [3] Well, i'm no longer assuming that energy and particles are the same thing, but i would still say that light or heat takes up space. And it appears that i don't have to answer your questions in order to confuse you. [4] I'm not sure how i would define metaphysical and physical to where they contradict each other, so i am currently mostly relying on the reader to be able to at least acknowledge that they deal with and mean two different things. [5] While some people may declare creation to be a god, i find that to be illogical. Therefore i would not be willing to believe in a god that can be created or put to death. Likewise, i cannot believe in something that causes its own existence—which would be the big bang in this case—unless it was caused by some other source, for then it would not have caused its own existence. [6] While it may be possible for those eyes to be merely something that looked like eyes but weren't, if it was exactly how Ezekiel described it, then there would be a couple of ways that determine without a doubt that these things were eyes as like the eyes of an animal. For one, real eyes blink, and two, real eyes move around. But i'm pretty sure he could distinguish a pair of eyes (though it was more than two) when he sees one. And it is not proper to say that the Bible was written some time after, since the Bible is only a collection of books, letters, poems, et cetera, that were sought to be preserved. Plus, the author of the Book of Ezekiel speaks in first person, and, if i remember correctly, he writes about being told to write down certain things, at least the measurements of a certain place. [7] I can't say that the vacuum energy theory you suggest avoids the paradox. In the case of God, God is conscious, therefore allowing for the ability to act on His own. But a vacuum or energy or vacuum energy? Neither have a conscious. You would have to explain how such a thing can do anything when there are no conditions that allow for a response from these things. [8] But that implies that there is a physical force behind every physical force. For what causes these electrical and chemical reactions? You are suggesting matter over mind, rather than mind over matter, which implies lack of free will. You should see the infinite regression when you try to answer what is the cause of those electrical and chemical reactions. [9] So what you are saying is that this Higgs boson particle is so small that it passes through the gaps of every other form of matter?

Reincarnation doesn't seem to imply any reason for its existence, that is, purpose. However, what it does imply is that there is a moderator or administrator, or else it would a completely random process to where you could end up being reincarnated as a rock. Therefore reincarnation implies some kind of god—but there is an exception to this. Reincarnation, obviously, could not have started the moment humans came into existence; it had to have started at a point where the human population, or at least all kinds of creatures, have reached a certain minimum, or else there wouldn't be much of anything to reincarnate. Reincarnation may also imply a shortage of spirits: that is, there is a high demand for spirits, but not enough spirits to go around.Since there is no way to tell if reincarnation is limited to creatures or not, it may very well be the case that reincarnation does not have any moderator or administrator declaring where things go where. That is, a tree isn't going to tell you anything about any past lives, nor would i expect anyone who claims to have been reincarnated to remember what it was like being a tree. But if there is no moderator, then you'd better hope you don't get reincarnated into something that takes forever to die that is unconscious. If i remember correctly, one of the buddha's sayings said similar, about hoping for being reincarnated as a conscious thing.The gradual memory loss, assuming you were able to retain some memory of a past life, implies reincarnation may have no purpose, at least not the kind described by some religions. For if reincarnation was a process that is supposed to gradually lead to enlightenment, then memory loss is a self-inflicting wound. Though i haven't done much research on the subject, from what i've mentioned, i'm not the kind to believe in (seemingly) random processes. I can't refute reincarnation, and while it may seem like a possible explanation as to how a child can mention things about the past, i can't say that reincarnation is the only explanation—and by explanation, i don't mean something wholly scientific.

Back during the time where certain movies that were based on true stories, one concerning a specific house which you can visit today, and the other about a girl who was possessed, i did some research on demonology and exorcism. I found some interesting websites; reading them sent chills down my back. The ones i found dealt mostly with possessed objects or animals. I don't remember everything mentioned, but concerning s?ances and the like, it was mentioned that there is no such thing as a benevolent spirit. Doesn't matter what form or character they take on, it is not a spirit seeking to let you sleep peacefully at night.Take for example if the spirit takes the form of an innocent little girl that is merely seeking to play or is feeling lonely. Any appeal to emotion by feeling sorry for the girl may very well be the very thing the spirit wants. Yes, interestingly enough, for some reason these spirits appear to follow some form of ritual that seems to prevent them from acting any further. Those that ask for your permission require your permission in order to bind onto you or your household. Fortunately, they are normally restricted to the area where the contract was formed, but they may still follow you after moving to a new place.Concerning exorcism tools, like holy water and other things, certain methods will not work. For example, holy water, this rarely, if at all, works. If it does, the most you'll probably be able to do is calm the spirit down for a short amount of time—and this is assuming the spirit has possessed an object. There is no certainty on whether or not you'll be able to properly exorcise the spirit away. Possession concerning s?ances or Ouija boards only require a binding contract, and that is someone explicitly declaring acceptance of the spiritual entity.

I am not sure which ones you have tried out so far, if any, but i only know of Rosegarden. I can't vouch for it, but i hear it is good enough. Use of it will definitely involve reading some documentation, as far as i'm concerned.

Are you saying that a virus doesn't feel anything or that it is incapable of feeling or responding to pain? But as already mentioned, stimuli implies things that i would find counter-intuitive. That is, from stimuli alone you wouldn't be able to declare a robot as not an organism. That was my point: the DNA would have had to come first. But damage inflicting? Here are the general steps to compiling: Preprocessor: this goes through the source code replacing the includes (e.g. #include "file.h") with the actual contents of those files, does the macros, et cetera. This generates code from your code for the compiler. Compiler: the compiler then turns that code into object files. Linker: the linker brings together all those object files and checks out the libraries it is dependent on and creates an executable or library from them. The internals of these object files and libraries can differ from compiler to compiler. So, yes, "random" things are generated. The program, if any, that is generated cannot generally work (or "live") without the same environment since programs are generally dynamically linked. So in order for you to get them to work, you have to distribute that same environment along with your program. I'm not sure what areas under the water you are talking about, but sunlight doesn't reach all areas under the water. But that is irrelevant since it is not safe to assume a fully-formed, complex organism such as a plant as one of the first life forms to enter existence, at least from an evolutionary viewpoint. And i wouldn't consider it safe to say that the first organisms used whatever was available under the sea at that time, as it is uncertain what these first organisms are, unless you have something else to say about that. I would, however, consider it obvious that if these organisms lived in the water, that oxygen was not something that they were or would be dependent on. And if they were, i wouldn't expect them to rely on what little traces of oxygen pockets there would be under water. Rather, i would expect their system to have a mechanism that can separate oxygen from H2O. But this may in turn be asking for too much from something so simple. Natural selection isn't something that cares about the individual organism or of the other (potential) organisms in existence. Therefore the need for oxygen-producing organisms is non-existent. It can only be argued that pure chance, to which i would expect to be incredibly low, is the only way such an evolution can occur on its own without it being guided. For i cannot logically assume that the chances of an organism evolving into something that would eventually help out other things that can enter existence, coming into existence—where natural selection can also yield undesirable consequences to where it can kill off the organism—are high. All we can do is speculate on how things came to be from such an astounding, random process to the way it is today. I should also note, though, that since sunlight cannot reach all areas under the sea, i wouldn't say that it would be safe to assume that there was any land above the waters at this time, let alone near the surface of the water where sunlight can reach it. This contradicts what you first said in this post of yours. That is, i thought you understood my definition as "reacting to damage (or extreme discomfort or pain)." (Note: debates involve discrediting others' statements, or at the very least stating something contradictive.) Should i assume that your "crash" or "lolling" made you forget about what you said?