truefusion

Avant browser is not mentioned at all. It is small browser and it is without any plugins and other load that most popular browsers carry. So this could be one good choice if anyone is really interested in stripped down version of modern browsers. It is fast as well. I don't know which browser engine it shares, perhaps same like mozilla.

Avant browser is based on the Trident engine, the engine that Internet Explorer uses; good luck trying to get it to run on Linux. People have trouble running Internet Explorer through Wine, i can only expect the same trouble with Avant.

Thanks truefusion for suggesting color schemes. Now, I have changed colors at the footer by choosing the colors from the schemes suggested by you. You can take a look at it again and tell me if its ok or not in your opinion.....
Click Here to see the latest version of the template after changing colors at the footer

The footer is a lot better now. Now all that needs work is the header and navigation. I noticed the design on digyourpc.com has better fonts than the one you're working on, not only the families but the sizes as well as the colors. But the footer font is better on your rough draft.

Wow... I might try that out... but I don't know. Shouldn't I do it the hard way to learn some programming first before I dabble in the easier ways of life? :/ Because I was aiming to get something out of it, like last time, instead of making it easy for myself and not learning anything. :/ But anyways, have to do the actual template first. I don't even know what I want on it exactly. Just some vague ideas on the design.

You can help avoid some confusion when designing websites if you learn HTML. If you were to ever find something to be "off," knowing HTML and perhaps some CSS will help you to understand how things work and therefore allow you to easily adjust things to your liking. Programming is on a different level than this kind of design. It is not surprising to see programmers create incredibly complex programs while the UI is horrible or lacking (Linux is an example of this). This is why the user interface is often left to others. Unless the web designer specializes on popular CMS scripts, then they don't require to know more than HTML and CSS.

I avoid all WYSIWYG editors because they tend to do more damage than good to my code. Instead i just look for text editors with a lot of syntax features. If you are looking to learn HTML and CSS, i would recommend using a WYSIWYG editor so that you can get a general idea of HTML. The way i first learned HTML was by visiting a random website and working in reverse. If i wanted to know how they accomplished something, i would find the text that is within the desired element and then find that text within the source code and then look at the surrounding HTML. CSS was a bit more difficult to figure out in this way, but i managed.

If you can understand something as simple as BB code, then you'll eventually come to understand HTML.

I'm a fan of warm colors and colors that compliment each other. The colors you have currently do not seem to work entirely together. The only colors i see that work well together that you are currently using is the dark red, the content area's background color and the border color. Here is a few color schemes you could try out or take colors from:

1046780
784438
638860
920640

The first can be easily explained by hitting the back or forward arrows and then rotating the view towards the pole. The second one, however, cannot be so easily explained. I won't say that this is any clear sign or evidence of my faith, but i would nevertheless like to note that the second emphasis is founded in just about every distance before reaching the tunnel. If you hit the back or forward arrows and rotate the view towards the sky, you'll notice the same blurred image is shown in just about every distance. If it is a problem with the equipment, then we wouldn't expect the image to get larger as you get closer to the tunnel. If it were a problem with the angle of the camera, then we wouldn't expect the image to still remain when making use of the forward or back arrows (as seen with the light poll).The second image does not seem to be getting any bigger when moving back or forward. When you reach the tunnel you can still see a silhouette of the image at the top part of the enterance. Since i'm not going to continue clicking the arrow till "i" am out of the tunnel to see if the image is still there, you might as well conclude it is a problem of the panoramic camera view. The blurred image starts at the edge of the image where it makes the panoramic connection, implying malformation of the images.

For settings that the public can safely look at, i store in a file that uses the INI format. I have a class that i made that saves to this format; i don't need an INI parser since PHP provides one for me, but i couldn't find one that converts arrays into INI-formatted text in PHP, so i made my own. If my script deals with a database, then i'll store valuable, private information in there. If it doesn't use a database, then i'll store that information statically within my script's controller if needed.

I do not save any debugging values within any configuration. Instead i have a static method handle that for me, perhaps with the name enableDebugging(). The user doesn't need to be bothered with debugging messages, especially since it is the job of the developer to ensure code stability for their script. The only errors the user should be bothered with are those that are not caused by the script or errors that are out of the script's control. Using a static method instead of storing any value within the configuration helps limit things more to developers. I would much rather include "forgiveness" within my script than to perhaps confuse the user with errors they need not worry about.

What URL are you trying to access exactly? By the sound of it, it appears to be one of two things: either the server isn't running or you tried to access a location that doesn't exist. If you tried to access LOCALHOST/, then that implies the server wasn't (isn't) running. If that URL works, then you tried to access a location that doesn't exist.

The code you posted shows how to retrieve the template code from the database in the following lines:

mysql_connect("your.hostaddress.com", "username", "password") or die(mysql_error()); mysql_select_db("Database_Name") or die(mysql_error()); $coding = mysql_query("SELECT * FROM template") or die(mysql_error()); $template = mysql_fetch_array( $coding );$text = mysql_query("SELECT * FROM content WHERE content_id =1") or die(mysql_error()); $content = mysql_fetch_array( $text );

The code you posted shows how to display the template code in the following lines:

print $template['Head_Open']; print $content['title']; print $template['Head_Close'];print $content['body']; print $template['Page_End'];

As you have already figured out, include() and require() will not work, because these two functions do not concern any database but files in the file system.

 

There is really not much use in storing a template inside a database, though. To me, that just increases the complexity of the template system. If you store the template code in regular text files, then include() and require() will work, and the template system would be easier to manage.

Wow... Truefusion. Simple language for dummies, please. I use a Mac. As in... the classic white one. My mac software is version 10.6.4. If that helps. There is no green or red holes in my computer, mainly because macs don't show it. My mac has an inbuilt microphone, so I never need to plug in my microphone... And I think I might have one of those jack thingies that you are talking about. Just have to find it.

And I kinda get what Baniboy is saying... thats pretty smart! But like I said, I don't have a microphone because mine's inbuilt, and I'm not sure if theres a plug for plug in microphones. Also... if thats possible, does that mean I won't be able to hear anything? Because my audio output would be back into the audio input?

If your Mac has a built-in microphone, then does it also have built-in speakers? If it doesn't have any green and red holes anywhere, not even ones with a microphone and speaker icon on top of it, then it would appear to me that you are forced to use software to get what you want. So, you can pretty much scratch the 3.5mm cord idea if that's the case.

@truefusion: What's Stereo Mix? Maybe I can get a software for mac or something. I found Hijack Pro where I can Hijack the system and record the conversations. I just don't know how to input sound from my computer to skype.

"Stereo Mix" is a common label for your primary output device. It is the common output device that the operating system routes all sound to so you can hear sound through your speakers or head set. "Stereo Mix" can also generally be found under input devices. Therefore if you tell audio recording programs to record from "Stereo Mix," you would record all sound that you would hear coming out of your speakers. Note that this label is mostly used under Windows; on other operating systems they may use more complex labels. You may find the lables "Internal Audio Stereo" and "Internal Audio Microphone" or a variation of these labels in other operating systems.

When you open Skype's Preferences window and choose "Audio" from the category list, what are all the options you have for "Audio Input"? If you are given more than one option, then you may have the ability to switch between output devices and input devices for "Audio Input" via Skype. Otherwise you may get lucky messing around with the operating system's audio settings.

Link

Please read the pinned topic to see your requirement(s) in Request Free Sig Or Banner section. Click here

In the mean time please improve your post quality and continue to contribute quality posts.

Please read the pinned topic to see your requirement(s) in Request Free Sig Or Banner section. Click here

In the mean time please improve your post quality and continue to contribute quality posts.

Whether this is possible through the use of software alone would depend mostly on two things: whether or not Skype has the ability to choose what device you want for input and whether or not the system will allow it to switch devices in such a fashion (i.e. e.g. redirecting the Stereo Mix output device to the Microphone input device). If the core audio API of the Mac operating system does not allow for Skype to do this, then a hack may be required or an audio control utility that forces this change on other programs. I do not own a Mac, nor have i messed with one to this extent, so i cannot recommend you any programs. If this were Linux i would direct you to PulseAudio's device tools; if this were Windows XP or later, i'd be able to help too. If you are unable to find anything, then you may have to do what Baniboy suggested and get one of those cords with a 3.5mm jack on each end (i used to use one way back when before i figured out about Stereo Mix recording). Using this cord would be simple if your computer has ports on each end of the computer (i.e. front and back). You'd plug your headset in the back and the other cord in the front (assuming the system doesn't take input from only one source). If the system does not take input from multiple sources, then you may be finding yourself unplugging and plugging your head set quite often.

Just finished installing it through the internet. Start-up time seems slightly quicker and start-up overall seems more stable, but i don't entirely remember the 10.04 fresh-install speed. Default X11 ATI drivers are still buggy (and i don't expect them to be stable for any later versions of Ubuntu). The KDE desktop effects cause the system to freeze with the default X11 ATI drivers. Haven't tried the proprietary ones yet (need to restart first), but the proprietary ones tend to fail to load on start-up. Hopefully, that problem isn't still present with this version.My interest with this version concerns mostly the development packages, specifically the Qt library. Qt Creator 2 is in the repos with Qt 4.7. 4.7 introduces a declarative UI framework that i am interested in trying out.

how to receive the username back to this present working page from the login page......?

I do not know your current code, but from what i can derive from the current scenario, your login page is letting people get through without the user providing a username. If this is not the case, then i cannot provide you with a solution. Either way, i wouldn't have relied on the $_GET variable to store a username (i would have considered $_COOKIE).

According to the code logic, isset($username) returned false, therefore $user does not contain the resource that would have otherwise been given by mysql_query(). Since there is nothing in the code to fill $user with a resource when the "username not received," mysql_fetch_array() notices that no resource was provided, and so the error you receive.

Please read the pinned topic to see your requirement(s) in Request Free Sig Or Banner section. Click here

In the mean time please improve your post quality and continue to contribute quality posts.

This would be a wasted effort on those who decide to take on such a mission. This, also, would not help to promote the use of solar energy; if a field of solar panels do not cause others to yield towards solar energy, then neither will ships that cover the same amount of ground on sea that have solar panels on board. Financially, it would be more beneficial for a company to stick to land than to sea, as there is more to manage out at sea than there is on land. Also, it is unlikely for any boat to travel enough distance to keep up with the rotation and revolution of the Earth—if that is what was intended of the ship. So long as there is a way to obtain energy in larger amounts, whether in a dangerous fashion, people will consider it over the methods that are "less efficient."

Let us take an example.A driver is proceeding down a road. An ambulance happens to speed past them and causes him to swerve. At that moment a person jumps into the road and forces him to violently steer right which means he swerves into a bus queue and happens to kill the brother of the person in the ambulance. Coincidence? Yes. There is no causal link between the elements, yet the person dies and there is a coincidence.

I do not understand what 'excuse' means in this context. It seems to me to be an entirely inappropriate word for 'reason'. As I said earlier, your problem is that evolution does not require coincidence so the thesis is flawed from the start.

The only possible coincidence is caused by the emphasis placed on who is in the ambulence and who died at the bus queue; however, this emphasis is placed for no apparent reason, therefore meaningless, non-sequitur. Nevertheless, it is possible that the reason why the brother was at the bus queue was because he lacked transportation to the hospital and that he was not allowed to ride in the ambulence. In other words, the incident that the one in the ambulence was involved in happened near the bus queue.

You have completely misunderstood (and misrepresented) Darwin. Chapter 4 deals with the environment in detail.

Do you want me to continue? I can quote as much as needed.

Well, then, you'll have to quote more, 'cause what you have quoted does not show that the environment is considered for the species' evolution. Rather, the quote you provided talks about the land undergoing climate change, not the creatures undergoing any change, for there is no mention of this climate change causing the animals to evolve. In fact, it even mentions, "independently of the change of climate itself." Anything further mentioned does not provide any information on environmental changes causing biological changes in the inhabitants.

Why do you think that evolutionary theory rests on Darwin in any case? Do you not understand the work on genetics and the evolutionary synthesis that has been formulated since then? Trying to pick holes in Darwin's original formulation is to ignore the work since, and is therefore disingenuous. If you want to talk about evolution then bring it on.

If we are to use terms like "natural selection," then we must use authoritative sources that explicitly define what they mean. In this case, we have Darwin. If you have other sources that explicitly define "natural selection" in accordance to what we know today, where "natural selection" is not simply mentioned as if it assumes that we should already know what it means, then you should post these sources. Until then, there is no other reason to assume anything further than what Darwin himself wrote.

An image will be removed if found to violate the rules of the forums. I believe the rules, at least a general form of them, are already in place for the gallery. If you are not allowed to post them in the forums, then it should be obvious that the same rules apply for the gallery.That being said, there is no need to be rude to the topic starter simply because he was courageous enough to post his thoughts on a certain image.

If you want a topic to be removed or deleted, use the report button found at the bottom left of your post. Fill out the form telling us that you would like your topic removed. We'll get to the report as soon as we can.

You are confusing yourself.a) Coincidence does not follow from some mechanism - true.
b ) It cannot therefore be used to demonstrate any mechanism - partially true.
c) Therefore it cannot...etc....false.
That is your basic mistake.

A set of coincidences (a-z) can result in outcome X. Outcome X is therefore a result of coincidences a,b,c...z.

If Z is the result of Y, and Y the result of X, and X the result of V, and so on, then it cannot be said it is due to coincidence. As mentioned before, coincidence cannot prove a relationship. Therefore what you state to be "coincidences" are not so. Therefore my statement, that coincidence cannot be an excuse for something's existence, would still stand.

Natural selection does not actually depend on ANY coincidence. There are a number of mutations that occur naturally to all germ DNA. That is no coincidence, that is a simple fact which is universally applicable.The rest is entirely deterministic in that the mutations that produce the adaptation best suited to survival/breeding will, of course, be passed on.

The definition for natural selection as given by Charles Darwin in chapter 4 of his book, the Origin of Species, entails a process that does not consider the environment, the creature's well being, et cetera. It is a process that does not bear any relation to anything external of the organism. Arguably, neither does it bear any relation to anything internal to the creature. For the process is defined as something that can generate something either desirable or undesirable to the creaturethis may imply something conscious doing the decision making, but "mother nature" can be taken as unconscious. Since it can be either desirable or undesirable, the deciding process therefore is not deterministic (showing no relation; coincidental). It is easy to try and argue for a process that shows desirable traits (though, by the definition of natural selection, that is futile), but for those that show undesirable traits, what would it matter if the creature will eventually die 'cause of it? Science needs there to be a relation in order to further understand and to link things together, so it is no wonder why anyone would try to argue for a relation.

You also have a problem with your definition of logical....I will leave you to work that out, since I am sure you are intelligent enough to spot the flaw.

The only problem i see is that you do not seem to understand my explanation.

Somehow i have missed dasmeaty's reply to my post several months back, but, though i do have a response to his post, since it is several months old, i'll avoid responding to it for now.

 

Unfortunately that does not mean that you can say

"Coincidence is non-sequitur, therefore everything has a reason for its existence (except if they are eternal)."

as you do in your avatar, because that, itself, is a non sequitur.

 

What utter piffle. Of course coincidences exist. You either don't know what 'logical' actually means, or you are deliberately misusing the word, because nothing about coincidence is at all illogical.

It is not 'stated for convenience' or 'to fill the gap in knowledge' because that implies that there must be a causal relationship between two events which appear to be related. Where no such relationship exists then it is a coincidence.

Coincidences happen all the time and if you knew something of statistics you would know that they MUST happen.

Since you clearly believe in some form of creationism, then I will use a simple analogy that should appeal to you:

 

If my watch is stopped then it will show the correct time twice in any 24 hour period (assuming it is a rotary dial watch). If I happen to look at the watch at the time it just happens to be correct, then we call it a coincidence. Nothing illogical about it.

 

I am having trouble seeing why i cannot state what i have currently as my custom member-title from what i have said several months back. If coincidence bears no relation with anything, it follows that it cannot follow from anything, and so it cannot (logically) prove anything. If it cannot prove anything, it follows that coincidence cannot be an excuse for something's existence. If coincidence, something that does not form a relationship, cannot be used, then we are left with something that requires there be a relation. Stating a reason for something implies a relationship, therefore everything that exists requires a reason for their existence. I merely mention "except if they are eternal" to imply what i mean for "everything," for it is obvious that anything that does not have a beginning cannot have a reason for its existence. Concerning this topic, natural selection is dependent on (or its basis is) coincidence, and so my statement contradicts natural selection.

 

While it may be safe to assume that if something is illogical, that it does not exist, i did not say that coincidence did not exist, i merely said that it was illogical. Nevertheless, coincidence deals with unrelated events which people form a relation to when there is none. However, the analogy that you give to try and show coincidence, does indeed show relation bewteen two events. While it may be the case that you staring down at your dead watch is not related to your dead watch displaying the current time, it is, however, relational that your dead watch is displaying the current time. We know that something is not related when we drop one of them and are still left with the other. And we know that something is relational when we drop one and the other falls along with it, and so are left with nothing. Therefore it is not possible to drop the event of the current time and still be left with the event of your dead watch displaying the current time.

 

What makes coincidence illogical? Coincidence shows no relation to anything and (therefore) it cannot prove a relationship. Something logical is something that shows a relationship between two or more things. Therefore coincidence is illogical.

As a correction to the list provided, Opera 10.62 does indeed pass the acid test 100%. I also find interesting that the listed results show that Safari didn't pass the test and Chrome did though they both use Webkit. I suppose Google has made some changes to the Webkit engine for their browser. I will have to check this out the next time i'm in Windows.

Near the upper right corner of practically every page of these forums, you will find the link labeled "Welcome - Start here! - Free Web Hosting." Upon being directed to that page, look for the heading, "Benefits & Rewards." In the context under it, you'll find enlarged the word (question) "How?" This is a link. Click it, and you'll be directed to the topic about myCENTs. Follow the steps 1 through 3 within that topic (in your case, you only need to follow step number 2).

I would assume the reason why your str_replace code does not work is because it doesn't find "<br>" and that the content of the text file actually contains "<br/>". By default the second parameter of nl2br is always "true" unless otherwise specified. This tells PHP to translate new lines to "<br/>" since it is XHTML compatible. You are better off using something like preg_replace to search for both <br> and <br/> in the content of the text file.

Limit? Why should I limit science?

I do not know why you would limit science, but i didn't say that you have, and you did not answer my question. What are all the scientific theories you have been so assuming?

 

You don't understand the basics of science and everything you have said to date is pretty much gibberish. You don't understand the difference between axioms and premise and hypotheses. Scientific theory = pretty damn certain. A scientific theory is one which all the best scientists in the world have had a go at - trying to tear it apart - and failed to do so. It is backed by multiple strands of evidence from multiple disciplines and can be falsified at any time with just a single measurement - but it has survived.

If you are going to state something like it is fact, at least explain why. What is the difference between an axiom, premise and hypothesis? Can you separate the three?

 

"Pretty damn certain." I am sure that's what they said about Newtonian physics before Einstein came around. I'm sure Stephen Hawking was "pretty damn certain" about his theory that information is lost within a black hole, but now he is trying to show instances where that isn't the case. If you haven't yet noticed, "pretty damn certain" is science fiction. Survival, therefore, does not mean it is true or as valid as one may think. As mentioned before, anything that is subject to tests is subject to correction, therefore it is not safe to assume certainty. Also, when one assumes as zealous as you have that certain theories are sound, this causes there to exist those who do not test but assume it true always. When we go to school we are taught conclusions to theories though the premises to these theories are often avoided. Rarely do you see anyone question the material, because the material is teaching things as if it were undeniable (and perhaps because of ignorance from the students). And so, they can go through their entire life believing it as such. If you choose to continue supporting science as zealous as you have so been doing, at least remember that certainty can be a delusion.

 

And what do you offer against theory? A self-contradictory myth from several thousand years ago that you keep reinterpreting but still can't make any sense out of?

Only your interpretation has been contradictory to the text. And the only thing from my interpretation that i have been willing to modify is that "light" in "let there be light" could actually be stellar formation and that when the sun, moon and stars are introduced in the Fourth Day, that it means they have finally fully formed, which follows from my argument of relativity.

 

You also confuse the problems of induction and deduction. The are actually very few assumptions in the BB theory and all of them make predictions which can be and have been tested. That's the thing about science - if it can't be tested it isn't science - we call it pseudo-science or religion.

So when the big bang theory says - take the temp in space and you will find it is around 3 degrees absolute - and we take the temp and find 2.7-3 degrees absolute that is good. Then when the theory says - hang on we should be getting a lot of em interference because of the initial state - and a couple of decades later scientists discover exactly that interference then that is good And the theory says - you should observe x amount of hydrogen and y amount of helium and z amount of silicon - and so on - and we do indeed observe those amounts, then you have something approaching a theory. Not enough by a long chalk, but it would take hours to list all the supporting evidence and there is no real need.

Where did i confuse problems of induction and deduction?

 

When someone states "this" happened, do they know how it happened? When trying to figure out how something occurred, you cannot work yourself down, because that is to work from the cause down to the event. Instead, you have to work yourself up, from the event to the cause. Deduction is working yourself down. Induction is working yourself up. Your example of how the Big Bang theory is supported shows induction, because you are working yourself up. We both know induction is more prone to error than deduction. For that reason, you have to be very careful what you call fact or truth.

 

While you may find that there is no reason to list all supporting evidence, in a debate "what is known to be true" is often irrelevant. That is, it is not safe to assume something as true where it is not obviously so. And by "obviously" i do not mean personally discovered or convicted but observable by anyone. In a debate, all premises to a conclusion must be given, or else you have no argument, because an argument consists of these things. In a debate, therefore, you can't claim something as if it were fact without showing it to be so. Or else each side would have equal grounds; there would be no difference in weight between each party's statements.

 

While your example implies certain premises of the Big Bang theory, as you say it does not fully entail the Big Bang theory, and so does not prove the Big Bang theory. You might try to argue that the audience could look up the information themselves, but that is not the job of the audience (or the one questioning). The debaters are supposed to be providing the material.

 

Yet another lie. You are just making it up as you go. First you say that no other use of Yom is associated with a number - lie. Then I tell you that is rubbish and there are 200 such uses. Now you claim to know these, after denying they existed. Finally you try to invent some spurious distinction relying on not 'belonging to a group?'

More nonsense. Exodus 20 contains the word Yom used with an ordinal in exactly the same type of grouping, as does Deuteronomy 9.

 

You don't know what you are talking about, which I can forgive, but just lying your way out of a hole? Nah, that's not be tolerated.

My argument on this has not changed. Just because you said it has doesn't mean it has. You can retrace my posts to see that this is what i have said: I said the pattern is not found anywhere else in the Bible that is found in Genesis 1. The pattern is the grouping i have mentioned. The only thing you'll find outside of Genesis 1 are individual instances (as to say they are not part of a sequence; where the other instances can be removed and still make sense, for they do not imply the other), not of any group or number pattern.

 

There is no contradiction between what i have said; i have not lied. You will find my words to be true even with Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 9.

 

Genesis 1:3-5 is all that is needed.I don't have to rely on the first argument (even though it is water-tight) - this alone is sufficient. Evening + morning = Yom = Day.

Clearly it cannot mean 'period of time' because he has defined it as morning+evening. QED

The time passed between "morning" and "evening" for any context is a period of time. If you have forgotten, "period" is ambiguous. Therefore any length of time is allowed. Therefore they can very well mean "period of time."

 

Regardless, equating to "day" does not imply 24 hours, given the context. Chronologically speaking, Genesis is said to have been written before any other book of the Bible. Given that Genesis 1 accounts for the act of relative creation, it makes sense that what is written in Genesis 1 is the perfect start of the Bible. Since the textual assumption starts off at a time before the sun's formation, before there was any human to assume a 24-hour period for "day," it is safe to assume that "morning" and "evening" and "day" do not assume the sun's existence. Therefore all we have left is the figurative form of the Hebrew for "day." "Evening" and "morning," therefore, can mean the time of an act (evening—Hebrew ereb, derived from arab, which also means "to undertake; to engage") and the completion of an act (morning—Hebrew boqer, derived from baqar, which, figuratively, also means to admire).

 

You present nothing logical because you don't recognise logic when you see it. The fact that the author didn't bring the sun in until later is your problem, not mine - that is what it says. it is wrong. Your excuse is that whenever it is wrong you have to make something else up...circular argument.

This bit of the bible is wrong => BUT

The bible is not wrong therefore you have interpreted it wrong => THEREFORE

An interpretation which is possible is the only correct one => THEREFORE

I will invent one that works and twist it to fit. => THEREFORE

The bible is correct.

It's the nightmare example of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - and so obvious I am certain that my 12 year old nephew would spot it in seconds.

Actually, the fact that the author didn't introduce the sun until the Fourth Day merely supports my claim. Therefore it is not a problem for me. What would have been a problem for me is if they introduced the sun in the First Day, before the mention of any "day." But they didn't, so all is good.

 

I have not changed my position concerning the meaning of "day" not even once throughout this entire discussion, nor have i used support that isn't Biblical, therefore it cannot be said i have "invented" (as if to say that i have added things that are not found in Scripture) an interpretation.

 

It should be noted, however, that both of our interpretations are possible. For that reason i would not state that those that are possible are the only ones that can be correct. I might, however, state that the most accurate one is the correct one—even if it is not logically the case. It should also be noted that this part of your post did not provide a (relevant) response to the part of my post that you quote.

 

Clearly they can exist without the sun. Anything can exist when you are God. It just isn't logical to use the words before you describe how they come about. Unfortunately the author didn't think it through and didn't know enough about cosmology to realise his mistake. It is not a mystery, it is just wrong.

Actually, it is logical to use a word before defining it. That is how you introduce a word. Dictionaries do it all the time, mentioning the word before their definition. The only difference with Genesis 1 is that it is not explicitly defined. There is no need to bring in the topic of cosmology here; it is irrelevant, therefore no mistake.

 

No that is just what YOU say, not the bible.The bible says "In the beginning God created __ the heaven and the earth". If you want to say that there is a significant gap between this 'beginning' and the next bit ('And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters') then you need to remember what we said about photons. So here we have no light or heat therefore the waters do not exist because they are ice. No matter if you say there is a gap of a day or a billion years before 'the spirit moves', it makes sod-all difference because the earth is a black ice-ball for that period.

You have not shown that the supposed age of the Earth is not Biblically allowed. Also, it is not "the heaven"—that is an error of the KJV translation. The Hebrew is plural, so it should be rendered as "the heavens."

 

Concerning the water world during the time where the existence of light has not yet been introduced, i have no Biblical explanation. The only way to contradict intuition and to scientifically prove that a water world (or at least water that isn't frozen) is possible without a source of heat is to find such a thing else where in this universe. This instance in the Bible, therefore, is arguably theoretical.

 

Err...you are arguing that the genesis account is accurate, and now you say that the appearance and order is biblically explainable. Do you know what a tautology is? Do you actually know anything at all?

 

It explains nothing because it is, like the rest, cretinous nonsense. No sun = no life. Simple like so.

It doesn't make any difference. You can't have the earth before the sun - doesn't work. That one mistake blows it to bits.

 

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. Evolution is at least as well supported evidentially as the theory of gravity. Care to bet your life that the theory of gravity is wrong? Go jump of a high building and test.

 

When you make statements about scientific theory they mean precisely nothing because you don't understand the theory in the first place. It is typical of creationists to blithely assert that this theory is wrong and that theory is weak, when they haven't the foggiest notion what the theory actually is.

 

In which case Genesis 1 is scientifically wrong. QED again.There is no straw man, just someone with straw for brains trying to pretend he isn't talking nonsense. 'Extreme scientific definition' is more gibberish.

 

If they could see then it was light - photons with a certain frequency. There is no such thing as an 'extreme scientific definition'. The word 'extreme' is completely misused and redundant. I make no assumptions at all. I can easily demonstrate the difference between visible light and heat, and I can repeat the demonstration as many times as I like.

 

I've realised that I'm giving you far too much credit by bothering to continue to read your gibberish, when it is increasingly obvious that

a) You don't know your own bible

b ) You are not honest

c) You haven't a clue what science is all about and

d) You think that because you invent something it is true or logical...

 

Troll or Moron?....I can't decide, but neither is worth more effort...

 

try pictures, might be easier....

 

I do know what a tautology is, and i also know that science is dependent on a tautology (math). If you are trying to imply that if something is a tautology it is false, then you would be wrong, especially since truth itself is a tautology. But this doesn't change the fact that the appearance of animals mentioned by science is Biblically explainable. And, no, i have not just now started arguing this; this is something i presented a long while back.

 

The fact that there is no life at the beginning of the rebirth is what explains the different appearances of life at different set times. Believe it or not, stating that there cannot be any life without the sun is merely in support of my claim. The only reason, then, to claim that i am spewing non-sense is due to your own misunderstandings, most likely caused by your own assumptions. I'll withhold on responding to the part about not being able to have the Earth before the sun till i respond to the videos you have posted.

 

The theory of evolution is solely dependent on inductive reasoning. It is not deductive, because you can't work yourself down. You have to go up the supposed ancestral genealogy in order to even determine any genealogy. And that itself is an inductive process, since we do not already know what descends from what—we have to guess, and all of this is from induction, accepting things merely for the sake of progress. And this is what makes the theory of evolution a weak theory, because it is dependent on a system of logic that is highly prone to error. I will also point out just how illogical these decisions can become and without much if any testing (which you say science is all about tests) from the very video series you have so posted. So stay tune. Also, me testing out the theory of gravity doesn't prove that the theory of evolution is equal to it in validity.

 

The word "extreme" is meant merely for going beyond what was (is) intended. Your ability to differentiate between visible light and heat is irrelevant to the meaning of the word "light" in Genesis 1. The irony in all of this, is that the very video series you have posted argues for what i have been arguing: that "light" in Genesis 1 is the practical use of the word that includes both heat and visible light. This implies that the "evidence" that you post in order to show that you are correct, you yourself do not even listen or read it before posting. This only eventually makes you look inconsistent. It is to your benefit, therefore, that you take the time to read or listen to what you post from an external source before posting it.

 

I don't believe that someone who has yet to use derogatory titles and ad hominem statements can be called a troll. Why you feel the need to use these methods at all is beyond me. Nevertheless, if you wish to call me a troll, a moron, a liar, to say i have straw for brains, and everything else you have so called me or have attributed to me, whether implicitly or explicitly, that is your choice and i am not offended—it doesn't bother me. Just consider being consistent and not mentioning irrelevant things such as these. Now on to the videos...

 

Part 1

 

Irrelevant; it doesn't provide any arguments either for or against anything; it is merely for the sake of introduction.

 

Part 2

 

This video talks about how water could not have existed without stars. According to the video, the death of a star causes oxygen to exist. It is understandable why one would think that the existence of a star is required for the formulation of oxygen, since intuition would dictate from the implied assumptions that stars would be one of the first things formed by the Big Bang. To introduce "yom" here, as the video does, is irrelevant. The video argues nothing different than what you have been arguing. Therefore there is no reason for me to repeat my argument against it. It is interesting that the video shows a young-earth creationist making an interesting, rhetorical statement. However, the same can be said for the assumption of 24-hour days: if you did not use any external sources but the Bible alone, would anyone be able to know or prove that every instance of "day" are 24-hour days? No, they wouldn't; there is no way to prove such a thing internally. The only reasoning that could be used is inductive reasoning, forming the assumption that, "We use 'day' to mean a 24-hour day, so they must too!"—which is what the narrator does, more explicitly shown in part 3 of the series, the part concerning the astronauts. But to get back to how water can pre-exist stars: I have already provided an explanation, it is implied within my concept of universal rebirth. However, as we shall see in one of the following videos, both the concept of rebirth and the death of stars is irrelevant for the Earth to generate water. Anyone who doesn't pay close attention to detail would easily miss this.

 

Part 3

 

The video starts off by saying that light could not have existed without the existence of stars. However, it is known that interstellar clouds, of which look nothing like what we call a "star," give off visible light. Since there were no humans in existence at the time of the creation of light, this means it is whatever light that is visible to God. To say that there was no light for "such and such" length of time, that is irrelevant, because it is obvious that the text is at the point where light is introduced. Whatever generated visible light at the point in time and afterwards where light is Biblically introduced, therefore, due to there being no explicitly definite source mentioned within Scripture, anything that gives off visible light is textually allowed. The separation and terminology following the introduction of light, of light and darkness as "day" and "night," due to the ambiguity of the text, the only thing we can assume for "day" and "night" is something that is at least metaphoric or figurative.

 

Part 4

 

This part in the series, the narrator introduces a very old and common argument by unbelievers surrounding the KJV rendering of the word raqiya—"firmament." In every instance of the argument i have seen, unbelievers use external, unrelated sources in order to try and define what the Biblical "firmament" is, of which the narrator in this video does no different. While he is correct in what word raqiya implies from the Hebrew language (i.e. to expand, since raqiya is derived from raqa—to pound out), it is incorrect to state that it also means that within the visible arch, the sun, moon and stars are inside this visible arch. He goes on to try and list the other visible properties that are supposedly described elsewhere in the Bible. He starts off by stating that this so-called "dome" (already simply using this word shows his assumptions) is a surface but provides no verses as evidence. Then he states that God can sit on His throne on this surface, but the verses shown at this point in the video (Gen 7:11-12) do not even show this to be the case. Then he says it is described as tin or crystal, but, again, the verses he shows (Gen 7:11-12) does not illustrate that information. He then speaks about the windows of heaven; finally the verses he shows actually do say "windows of heaven;" however, this is obviously a poetic use of the word arubbah in Scripture.

 

Remember when i said that unbelievers for the word "firmament" try to use external, unrelated sources for their argument? Proof of the narrator in the video that he is doing it here too is founded at 4:06 into the video. Note at the right, upper corner that says, "Heaven of Fire for Greeks and others." In what way, then, should we use this figure as a basis for any of our assumptions surrounding the word "firmament," as meant Biblically? Anything following from it, therefore, is irrelevant; likewise, so is any exact immitation (which he shows a colored version later on in the video, copyright of Michael Palmer—perhaps the narrator's brother?). The proper understanding of the word raqiya is the visible arch that separates the celestial bodies above it and our sky (the area where the clouds are and where the birds fly, et cetera) that is below it. The firmament encircles the entire Earth (obviously, since raqiya is derived from raqa, which means to expand).

 

Now the video introduces the "early Earth." The part of the video i want to point out here is that the video is showing that water is being generated without any introduction or mention of any stars. The way the video is illustrating the formation of water implies that it is coming straight from the Earth. This seems to contradict one of the narrator's statements in a previous video. This is to be expected, though, from those who make video series such as this. It is obvious that this person is not a scientist and is getting all of his information from video documentaries from the Discovery channel and other sources. I will admit, however, that the way the video describes how water on Earth came into existence contradicts the Bible if and only if we assume that both the Biblical event and our scientific predictions on how and when the Earth formed, is occurring for the very first time. But Biblically the Earth was already in existence for an indefinite amount of time, which allows for both to be true, though the Biblical age of the Earth is therefore implied to be a lot more than simply 4.55 billion years.

 

What i find very interesting, though very odd as well, that the narrator mentions in the video is that life is required in order to form our atmosphere for oxygen to exist. This "life" would be what "pumps oxygen." However, that doesn't make sense, because then the water would not have been able to form due to there being no oxygen (like the narrator has stated in a previous video). It is appearing to me more and more that this person, when making the videos, did not take all the time necessary to formulate a series that forms no contradictions within itself.

 

Part 5

 

I know you only posted four videos, and while the series isn't complete, i will go beyond the four videos you posted and into some of the other videos within the same series.

 

Now the series starts getting a bit more consistent. In the previous video there was no mention of stars. In this video he comes back to the notion that oxygen could not exist without stars. However, that is all that is mentioned about stars it seems, that oxygen could not exist without stars; the remainder of the video fails to provide an instance where a star or many stars helped to form water on Earth. So it seems that water on Earth does not require stars, whether scientifically or Biblically, for, again, the water is illustrated to have formed on its own without the intervention of stars. The remainder of the video also touches upon what i have mentioned about the previous video: that this information only contradicts the Biblical account under certain assumptions.

 

Being on the topic of land formation, i would like to emphasize the water world that both the Bible and the video mentions and of the implications of an Earth that is older than 4.55 billion years. If we assume that the Earth had a previous "existence," in that there existed life on it at a time previous to the creation account, then it would follow that the Earth was smaller than what it is now. For if there were land animals in existence in prehistoric times, it follows that there was land. But in the Bible the Earth is introduced as a water world. This would mean that something occurred on Earth where the water rose above the earth to where land was no longer visible above the waters. Later on in the Biblical account, the land rises above the waters (yet again), which implies the size of the Earth got bigger.

 

Part 6

 

This part in the series talks about life on earth, but specifically plant life, on its first appearance and on its growth process. It should be obvious to anyone that photosynthesis is not required for seeds to grow into a plant except perhaps after reaching a certain stage in the growth process, a stage that has already peeked outside of the dirt, out into the air and where would be the open sun. Nevertheless, if you recall our discussion on the First, Third and Fourth Day of the Biblical creation account, on "let there be light," on relative and relevant creation and on plant life, it is easy to derive and explain how plant life could have grown within the implied conditions of the Biblical text. As you have said, the sun, moon and stars mentioned on the Fourth Day could be what we see today. In other words, the Fourth Day introduces "fully"-formed celestial bodies. This, therefore, implies a state for the sun, moon and stars that is not yet fully formed. The sun would not need to be "fully" formed simply to provide heat and light.

 

Part 7

 

Like in the video, you have claimed that the sun could not have formed at a later time than the Earth. However, neither you nor the video have provided any reason that eliminates the possibility of any contrary scenario. If one were to argue that life could not have existed on Earth without the sun therefore the sun had to have come first, this does not prove that the sun came first, because the Earth could have still have started forming before the sun. The video states that scientists believe planets form only within range of a sun. However, the concept of accretion allows for planets to form without a sun, as implied and shown by the video. Ironically, the narrator of the series does not notice this possibility and continues on assuming that the sun had to come first.

 

Now he introduces the theory of the moon crashing into Earth, to say if the moon were introduced on the Fourth Day and plant life on the Third Day, that the moon, if taken both Biblically and scientifically, would have destroyed all plant life that occurred on the Third Day. However, there is no need for me to argue against this segment of the video, as not even the narrator of the series seems to be taking this theory of the moon crashing into Earth seriously, due to his statement being a hypothetical proposition by starting it off with the word "if." Anything else mentioned in the video i have indirectly addressed for the previous videos.

 

Part 8

 

Other people's interpretations are irrelevant to me and for me. But it is not surprising that the narrator of this video series is still assuming that these 6 Days of creation are 24-hour days. This video, therefore, not need a response from me.

 

Part 9

 

This video, along with the following video, shows clearly just how weak the theory of evolution is, due to its inductive reasoning. The video introduces the sea creature commonly referred to as "whales" and tries to show that the first creatures on Earth had to have been land animals and not first sea creatures (birds to be be introduced later in the videos). Neither thick bones nor the discovery of oxygen and carbon isotopes in the teeth prove that it has any relation to sea creatures, because other land animals have the same characteristics. Also, drawings are never proof for anything. Concerning the Hebrew word tan-neen (the word rendered "great whales" in the KJV translations—"great" because of the derived word tan), this word allows for both sea creatures (those that can't live outside the water) and for creatures that spend most of their time in the water but are capable of walking on land. I do not need to try and prove that the assumption that prehistoric creatures are included within the Biblical text work with the text, as i have not argued that prehistoric creatures are included in the Biblical text but the contrary.

 

Part 10

 

Due to inductive reasoning, as shown in this video, you'll be able to come up with many interpretations of the fossil record on how they could have evolved into what we see today. Just like the previous video, i need not address anything, as i have not argued that prehistoric creatures are included in the creation account. Nevertheless, i'll mention a few things about the video. One segment of the video introduces a fossil that has a thick line along the creature's back. According to the video, this line is supposed to illustrate that this dinosaur was covered in feathers. If anyone were to see the fossil, they'll be able to note that this line does not go around the entire creature but it merely runs along the back of the creature from head to tail. This should indicate to anyone that this creature was not covered completely with feathers, if it can even be called feathers. The thick line actually looks like thick fur—like a prehistoric, mohawk hair style; it does not imply that the hair covers its entire body.

 

Later on in the video they show a fossil that indeed looks like it has feathers around its whole body. However, feathers on one creature is not an incentive to claim that other dinosaurs of similar size or shape, especially where the fossil record is not complete for the very creature in question, had feathers as well. For a theory that is within an area that is commonly proclaimed as a king of scrutiny, which we call "science," i fail to see any actual and thorough testing or questioning being done here to even show without a doubt that these inductions are at all valid or worthy of assuming for the sake of progress. But i am not surprised by this, as i already know that science is willing to assume things with or without proof for the sake of progress.

 

Conclusion

 

While the videos were a nice attempt at trying to refute Genesis 1, it did fail to provide a lot of information that it needed to have a sound argument (as i have shown for each part). As mentioned before, in any debate, all premises need be provided in order to form a proper conclusion. Simply stating the conclusion as if it were fact is not enough and it is improper within a debate. I do realize there are more videos in the series that are yet to be released, but i'm not going to wait for them.

 

As for those that say that Scripture is not capable of being tested or affirmed, that is merely said as a form of empty rhetoric. For if that were the case, there would be no way to even formulate a series such as these videos that try to refute or affirm Scripture. It would be pointless, for they would have no basis on where to start. The fact that they are capable and have therefore done so merely shows that Scripture can be tested as much as anything in science.