truefusion

[1] If i put an object in the way of the heat or light, i would not see the light nor feel the heat if i am behind the object. So, yes, i would also state that it does take up space. [2] I can understand that weight and mass are different. But by definition, volume is how much space something takes up, and mass is what allows for heavier weight. Look at my response to rvalkass concerning volume and mass for the remainder of this response and to understand why i consider mass and volume to be fundamentally the same. [2.1] You could say that if mass and energy weren't the same thing. Doesn't matter (pun intended ) how many examples you give to try and show otherwise, though. You will only be working against yourself if you try to separate what cannot be separated. [3] If my argument assumed or stated that God is physical, it would be self-contradicting. However, i'm sure if you re-read what i said, you would see that i have stated that God is metaphysical. [4] There's no need to go back in time just to show whether or not the 7 days are metaphoric or not. But as mentioned before, your logic forces you into a position that asks who or what made God. Your logic assumes that God is physical, hence why you say He has to be physical. But as i already declared, just as with all the trouble you are having with God being physical, if God is physical, that implies He was created, therefore leading to a paradox. You can't make sense of a paradox—it is by its very nature illogical; and attempting to make something illogical logical will only further increase the problem. For that reason, we know that it is not safe, plausible, logical, sequitur, et cetera, to assume to that God is physical. You can apply the very same logic to energy. Notice, then, that you would not be able to ask, "If God can be eternal, why can't energy?" Concerning zero-point energy, at least when you say energy entering existence from what appears to be out of nowhere (in other words, energy created ex nihilo), i see two things about it: Doesn't that imply, as you say about energy building up, that the total energy within the system increases? And if it doesn't increase, doesn't that mean, then, it is not necessarily the case that new energy is being created, but, rather, that energy from another location of the universe is being transported to this new location—perhaps by a wormhole? [4.1] I see God as the ultimate idealist, capable of manipulating reality with His own will—which implies His omnipotence. We can only dream of being able to create something out of nothing (with our own will). If God is the only thing in existence, then it follows that in order for Him to be able to create something, He would have to either take from Himself or be able to make things out of nothing. While the former may be possible, the former implies something along the lines of pantheism, which implies that God is physical. But i've already, exhaustively, stated the problems with God being physical. [5] I'm a bit amazed that you mention that God cannot exist in this universe. You have been saying that God has to be physical, only to now mention that He cannot exist in this universe. If He cannot exist in this universe, He obviously, therefore, does not bear the properties and limitations of the physical universe. Therefore He cannot be physical. But to answer your question: God is a conscious entity, to ask "why" may very well be irrelevant. For consider, why do you do things that you do? Isn't it because you want to do the things you do? Behind every action there is always a desire to do something. Even if you give me an analogy about having a gun pointed to your head where you are forced to do something you don't want to do, you would still have a desire to do something: you have the desire to live; it just so happens that this involves doing something you don't want to do. [6] Unfortunately, the only general growth in size observable is width, not height. However, the kind of "evolution" you mention here fits perfectly within creationism. I've always found it a bit of hasty generalization whenever one mentions that diet and exercise implies the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is more than just diet and exercise; to say that a fat bird (because that is really what it is) can generate a new type of bird is, in my book, absurd and shows that just about any change in mass or structure people will say is "proof for the theory of evolution," even if this change can only be maintained by the continuation of diet and exercise, not a change that is permanent. The theory of evolution implies one species evolving into a new species. You can have the fattest or strongest bird alive, that doesn't mean it is a new species. Say, for example, that you have a female cat and you fed your cat till it became the fattest cat alive. It gets pregnant, but during its pregnancy, its diet is not the same diet that got it fat in the first place; rather, it is a normal, healthy diet. Is its children going to turn out as fat as their mother? Let's assume that the cat did not go on a healthier diet but remained on the same diet that got it to where it is today. Let's say that diet caused its children to be overweight at childbirth. Does that mean that the children, if placed on a better diet, cannot lose their excess weight? I would have to, therefore, ask, how can diet and exercise ever lead to a new species? Sources that say it can can only lose their integrity with me. [7] Now this contradicts what you previously mentioned. I can gain weight or build muscle within a few months—within my lifetime. If anything, what you say here agrees with what i said for number 6. Nevertheless, those primates you are alluding to, to say that we came from them is to already assume that the theory of evolution is true, the very thing you are supposed to be trying to prove. [1] However, due to the fact that the word "evolution" is often used very loosely (refer to the fat animals example i gave for proof), there is no reason to assume that it will lead to a new species, therefore not excluding creationism. Natural selection need not be disputed if such a random thing has never occurred. [1.1] A sentient being, or God, would only need to create an entity capable of evolving and an environment that supports evolution. Not that i believe in such a god. [2] I know of which verses you are talking about; i have read the entire Book of Ezekiel. However, those creatures, as described in Ezekiel (and they are described from head to toe, in full detail), were merely spiritual. They are in no way alien lifeforms as we understand aliens (generally big head, big eyes, extremely skinny bodies). The number 4 plays a big role concerning these creatures that Ezekiel mentions (i.e. four wings, four faces on the head of each creature, the number of creatures that were seen, et cetera). These spiritual creatures were following, or being guided by, another spirit. The wheels that were following these spiritual creatures were not what one would call UFOs or flying saucers. These wheels, their rims had eyes covering it. I should mention that Wikipedia is a hit or miss kind of thing when it comes to objective theology. [1] M'ks. But just to make sure: Do all forms of particle decay lead to a decrease in mass? [2] What is the difference between mass, energy, and mass-energy? [3] Since i knew you would say something like that, that is, concerning mass and volume, i have prepared something that illustrates why i consider them to be the same, even if science may argue otherwise. Consider the following object (we'll call this "figure 1" for sake of reference): Due to the complications of the shape of the object, for the sake of convenience and progress, the volume is determined by measuring height, the furthest point from the top to the furthest point from the bottom, width, the furthest point to the left to the furthest point to the right, depth (or length), the furthest point from the front to the furthest point from the back. In other words ("figure 2"): However, we know that the amount of space the object takes up is not that. The actual amount of space it takes up is what is observable in figure 1, outlined in purple. But this is not to say that the inside of it is full. For if we look at the inside of it, we see that there is some space that it doesn't take up ("figure 3"): Hence why i believe volume and mass should be the same thing, at least by the definition of volume, because it is more accurate this way. If this object was real and we had two forms of it, one as empty as the one displayed here and one that is filled with the very thing it is made out of, the one that is empty on the inside would of course weigh less wherever there is gravity, hence leading to the definition of mass. While this way of looking at things may be scientifically impractical due to how volume is already implemented, things, i would say, would at least be more accurate.

In Wine, in FL Studio, i was able to do about, if i were to guess, 95% of all the things i could in Windows. That remaining 5% deals mostly with big projects: i could not make big projects the easy way without experiencing the music being too much for my computer to handle. You know when your computer can't handle all the work and when you are previewing the song in FL Studio, the song starts to become scratchy at the parts where the computer can't handle the stress? That's the only major problem i faced when using FL Studio under Wine. The other problems was when i would minimize FL Studio: *gasp* it's "gone." The only way to "restore" FL Studio then was to launch a program that forces the X server to resize the screen resolutions; then, all of a sudden, FL Studio is "back." The final problem i had was that any version higher than FL Studio 7 would not register. After updating to a certain Wine version, the minimize problem went away, but the other two problems remained. Other than these problems, i could use FL Studio satisfactorily. I am uncertain the reason why it wouldn't work for you like it did for me, but i wouldn't be surprised if it was because you stuck to the version of Wine that was in the repository, or if you used the "stable" version of Wine available on the Wine website and not the "development" one. I always compile the latest "development" version of Wine whenever i want to use Windows-only programs. I do not know of any "professional" musicians that use Linux as their digital workstation OS.

Unless i'm mistaken, i heard this would be available for IPB 3. For now you will only be able to insert links to the video. This feature can be implemented without having to upgrade to IPB 3, but that is a choice left to the administrators.

I had tried LMMS before, but i could never complete any song before experiencing a crash—and this was with keeping track of their newer releases. So i would normally just run FL Studio through Wine. It would be great if LMMS becomes stable, big and popular, but with many open-source project, the developers are normally people who work on these projects when they have the time. I had suggested to Image-Line to hire the LMMS devs so that they may work on a port of FL Studio to Linux, even if it would take them years to do it (which is what one of the FL Studio devs argued), but my request seems to be a dead topic.LMMS is a very good start towards having digital workstations available for Linux, but, unfortunately, i don't think it will grow big enough to compete against commercial projects.

[1] Right, but i never intended for support to be restricted to only public support. [2] However, it is not limited to your examples. But the point of this topic is not about knowing the whys (i.e. reasons—and i realize that "reasons" can include "how," but a lot of what we know already declares how); it is more of whether or not what we do know leads to either the theory of evolution or creationism. [3] I don't see how the Crusades are the roots of Christianity. [1] So how does particle decay work, then? [2] Err, i'll just assume that mass is lost within the system. Either way, though, this is not leading to energy being eternal. [1] When you say they are the same, i cannot picture them being in different forms. Mass, to me, is just a measurement of how much space something takes up (a.k.a. volume). That is why when i hear that something physical has 0 mass, it is the same as saying that it doesn't exist. I have seen people use the word "mass" when they really meant "weight," but that is silly and confuses the whole thing—if anyone means weight, then they should say weight, not mass; why else does the word "weight" exist? [2] Well, i can't really say that God is male (note, not man—"man" implies a human being, which is blasphemy). While i do say "He" and "Him," it is not necessarily to mean that God has a gender, but it's just conventional, i guess. According to the Bible, in Genesis, God made us in His image, which includes both male and female. This implies a few things, but concerning gender, it would imply that God bears no gender. I do believe He is omnipotent, or else He would not have been able to create anything and therefore would not be able to be called Creator. Multiple omnipotent beings seem paradoxical, which may explain why religions with multiple gods did not have omnipotent gods. And as far as i'm concerned, the universe can only imply one God. Concerning the 7 days of creation (though it is really 6, since God stopped on the 7th day), God didn't issue that the sun and moon and stars be used as a measurement to declare how long a day, a year, a season, et cetera, is until the fourth day. What does this mean? It means that evening and morning and the next day are not necessarily 24-hour days, hence yielding to metaphoric lengths of time. Likewise, it is also stated that a day can be like a thousand years to God (Psalm 90:4). Hence why i am not a young-earth creationist. But note also that "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3) came after Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1:2 implies that the earth was already in existence before the First Day of Creation began. Note also that what is created within the 6 days are things we can witness today, which means the account of the 6 days of creation were limited to these things—there was (is) no need to mention any other account. These are the kinds of studies i do, but it is not limited to these things. The Bible cannot necessarily be used to prove God's existence. Rather, it already assumes that the God that does exist is the one mentioned in the text. If you have noticed from my current arguments with shadowx concerning the big bang vs God, my argument merely declares that there is a God; it does not, however, state what God that is. From my Xisto profile, the part labeled the deist's dilemma, from that you should be able to conclude that any God that exists has to be a personal one and one that wants to be sought out. The Biblical God matches this description. This is my assertion: The Biblical God is the most logical God that there is a written account of and matches with what logic leads to. Therefore i see no reason to consider anything else.

Well, after about two weeks from the tick bite, the symptoms went away, including the rash, and i feel normal now. Nevertheless, the headaches and sore throat was the worst i have ever experienced—and the headaches didn't let me sleep. The headache started with my upper-right muller area aching and worked itself to the side of my head, eventually leading to its normal spot, the lower right part of the back of my head where my neck and head meet. The gums at the upper-right part of my mouth became swollen, too. Hopefully, that is the end of that.

Depends on your motherboard and what kind of set-up you're going with. While DDR2 and DDR3 have the same amount of pins, the gap in between the pins are positioned differently, so you cannot have a motherboard that supports both DDR2 and DDR3 although the processor may support both. Note that the advertised speed is divided by the channels. For example, if you have DDR2 800 dual-channel, that means 400mhz per stick. Concerning the RAM timings, if your motherboard can't support the advertised RAM timings, then you'll need a better motherboard. Most of the DDR3 RAMs can out perform DDR2. For gaming you won't necessarily need DDR3, but at least 2gigs is recommended—unless you are running Vista or Windows 7, then i'd recommend at least 4gigs.

I'd vote for the same one, if we were to stick with Creative Commons. Then again, i'm not sure if the other, non-Creative Common licenses would fit this environment.

[1] Do not confuse believing in the existence of murderers with believing that their actions are wrongâthese are two different things. I would expect you to argue against anyone who says that they don't exist, at least for the sake of justice. [2] Multiple small pieces will eventually yield to a big picture. The things that i said what we do know are those small pieces. If we did not have the small pieces, then certainly there would be nothing to discuss about. But we do have these small pieces, to which we are attempting to determine either-or (evolution or creationism). [3] To say that we don't know implies that we do know at least that we don't know. No one can inform anyone how much we don't know, because no one knows how much there is to learn. I'm not sure where you are going with the question, if it is something i said, or something you think about me, but, no, it does not make them any less of a person. [4] Believe it or not, even if i did know everything and shared everything i know, there is no way to avoid discrediting others. No matter your efforts, you will eventually state something that contradicts something said by someone else. [5] I do my own research on my own things at my own time. I have no obligation to share that research, especially if i am still researching things. As mentioned before, you do not know of the things i research. But i also have no obligation to inform you of my research, even if you ask for it. Likewise, people state their beliefs not because it was asked of them or because it was required by the topic at hand, but because they wanted to. I am under no obligation to follow in their footsteps especially if the topic doesn't demand for it. I wouldn't be surprised if you consider me a coward for not stating my beliefs in these kinds of threads, but you don't seem to realize that the only thing demanding for them is you and not the topic at hand. The topic is about "evolution versus creationism," not "truefusion's personal beliefs." Nevertheless, even if you were to go out after reading this and create a topic called "truefusion's personal beliefs," i would still be under no obligation to state my beliefs in such a topic (though such a topic title also implies that you would be stating what i believe in). If people don't want their beliefs scrutinized, then they should avoid stating them publicly. They know full well of the consequences of stating their beliefs out in public. You cannot blame people for questioning or scrutinizing their publicly-available beliefs. They chose to say them publicly, i didn't request that they do. [6] I scrutinize my own beliefs and what i think. If i ever seek help in that, i will post things publicly. If i didn't scrutinize my own beliefs, i would not be as rooted in them as i am now, and i would not be able to make even one statement for them. But it is because i do that i am even able to join these discussions. Many people i know would consider this dangerous. And to top it all off, if that's not enough, i go out of my way to see what is the latest argument unbelievers have to offerâwhich, believe it or not, i find unfortunate that they are practically the same things being repeated. I've seen Zeitgeist, to which anyone who has not done the research i've done, would most likelyâespecially if they aren't really sure of a reality beyond the physical realmâbe convinced that religion was created for merely control and money (which you are seeing being argued in this topic). [7] If it is for me and for me only, then i would be under no obligation to share. And if i don't share, then obviously i would be avoiding any scenarios where they would conflict with what others say or believe. But i wouldn't consider it safe to assume that everything i believe or state is for me and for me only. Indeed, don't i state things because i want the other person to know too? [8] What alternative would anyone offer to their own arguments (which does not in turn make it part of their own argument)? Does that then make everyone weak in what they believe or say? Not offering alternatives does not imply being weak in one's beliefs; rather, in fact, if anything, it implies that they are rooted into what they believe, for they offer nothing more. And no matter how many times you try to get me to state my beliefs because others have stated theirs, i am under no obligation to do so. Remember, they did it because they wanted to. I am not required to state mine because they stated theirs. Once you understand this fact, you should therefore stop requesting that i follow in their footsteps. [1] You seem to be talking about the particles themselves and not the system as a whole. To put it in another way from what i have said: Let's say an atom is made up of three particles and that atom decays to where one of the particles detaches itself from the group. Neither of the particles have escaped the system, nor have they individually decreased in mass. Therefore the mass remains the same for the system, but not the atom itself. Or is my understanding on this still wrong? [2] Okay, i don't see how you can make sense of everything else mentioned given the way you described everything. Energy and mass are the sameâokay, got that. But you go on to say something wholly contradictingâat least by definitionâby stating that, even though it can be seen by the numbers that mass was lost, it wasn't, it was just converted into energy. You have just finished stating that mass and energy are the same thing. How can you lose mass but still have the same amount of energy when both are one in the same? If there is nothing that bears mass, then it is safe to conclude that there is no energy given the fact that mass and energy are one and the same. [1] Right, but you can't avoid the fact that, while you may not support it in other areas, you at least support its existence. I would not expect you to argue against the very thing you believe in, for then i would question whether or not you believe in it. [2] Not necessarily, for even if we take on a purely idealistic view of the world, we can know, not "know," many things; for example, we would know that we ourselves exist. While it may be the case that we do not know certain conclusions or definitive facts, it is the things that we do know that i am talking about, which can eventually lead to these bigger forms of knowledge which you talk about. These theories or suggestions that come from these facts is merely a step toward those bigger conclusions. [3] Nevertheless, a concrete statement can be about anything, not necessarily limited to the examples you provide. To say that we can never make a concrete statement that satisfies the burden of proof is itself a statement that declares knowing. Therefore it is not the case that we can't declare that we know (with or without the question marks). [1] Well, when you continually state that Christianity is evil for such and such without providing any evidence for them in the very same posts and ask me multiple times who or what created God, i would suspect to say the same thing, even if it is in different wording. [2] Until rvalkass clears up the confusion, i will not respond to this statement of yours concerning the lifespan of a particle. As for everything else: I can easily imagine something not having a beginning, because i realize that it is us, the ways we have made it out to be, that causes us to be incapable of imagining something without a beginning. Space and time are infinite things. Why? Because they are metaphysical in their nature. So why do we have trouble with these things? Because we deliberately try to place limitations on infinite things. Do you see now why you have trouble? Trying to place limitations on infinite things will only lead to paradoxes, because you are trying to make a paradox a fact of life. This will not work. Therefore it is our fault, not this universe's fault. Once you understand this, while it may contradict much of what you have learned or read in science and much of how the world works socially, you should therefore be able to picture something without a beginning. But it still remains that something with a beginning cannot be eternal. You say that if i imagine time before this universe, that nothing can exist. This, i assume, follows from your understanding of the big bangâthat it is illogical to ask what came before the big bang. However, you don't provide any argument as to why it can't be. Picture "space" without space, what do you get? You get space. Why? Because you can't take away any amount to something infinite and expect to get anything less. Can you tell me that this universe has a limit as to how much space it has? That is, is there a wall at the "end" of the universe? There is no end to something infinite, that is why the word "end" makes no sense within this context. If you say that, no, there is no space when you picture "space" without space, that can only mean that you have a different definition for "space" than what the one i'm using has. "Space," as far as i'm concerned, is a void that you can place something "in" (space is infinite, so it may be absurd to say that something can be in it). Is this what you mean for the word "space"? You say God cannot exist because this universe doesn't yet exist. Indeed, how, then, can God be Creator or live in another realm? I could understand if God were physical for you to state that He could not exist if there was no universe. However, if He was physical, that would form a paradox. This goes right back to nothing can cause its own existence. Physical implies, at least according to the big bang, having a beginning. We would then, as mentioned before, end up requiring to have something without a beginning in order to avoid the paradox of "who or what created what." [3] The pictures you provide merely shows that they are capable of obtaining wealth, but it doesn't show anything more than that. It doesn't show any evil intentions, nor does it show that they gained wealth for control and power. Whether or not they built these things to spread Christianity or just to have a nice place of worship is beyond me, but i don't see anything wrong with what they've done. And i wouldn't be surprised if these places are now historical landmarks. [4] If the Bible did state December 25th was Jesus birth day, then i would agree with you. However, the Bible mentions no such thingâyou can even do a search for it in the NTL (New Living Translation) Bible (this translation uses today's calendar for areas that mention some point in time) and you won't find it. In fact, i don't think it can even be said that a calendar with such dates even existed or were in use at the time of Jesus. Anyone who claims that the Bible says December 25th was Jesus's birth day, or that Jesus's birth day is December 25th, can only lose integrity with me. If i remember correctly, Zeitgeist did it, and that merely showed that they didn't know what they were talking about. You say Wikipedia has something to say about Jesus's birth day. In fact, it does, and it goes along with i have just mentioned. [click] Indeed, no one who knows what is written in the Bible will ever declare that it says that Jesus's birth day is December 25. You don't need the tools of science to figure these things out. While we may not be able to guess which day or month exactly Jesus was born in, we can, however, figure out or narrow down what era or range of years he was born in. This is due to the fact that the Bible generally mentions the ruler of that time in order to provide a time frame for the events written. In this case, if i'm not mistaken, it was during Herod's rule. [5] Unfortunately for you, i cannot provide you with an answer you are looking for if i seek to remain truthful in the response. So how can you trust these things? Simply by getting the facts straight and by realizing similar, later traditions does not imply falsity in Scripturesâas they are not written in Scripture. Word of advice: don't use secular TV channels for objective theology. While that advice may sound counter-intuitive to you, secular TV, from what i've seen, has never provided an accurate description about Christianityâbe it National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, et cetera. These channels may be fairly reliable for other things, but concerning theology it doesn't seem to be. [6] Hopefully, i can show that to not be the case.

For most games out today, you would only need at least 600mhz with at least 32 stream processors. Note, this does not mean you'll be able to play the games at their highest or maximum graphical settings, but all the games you have listed will run fine. I own an ATI 4670 card and have made a review about it. Check it out if you go with one and have any problems with it, as i provide some troubleshooting information. Do not use the ATI drivers in Ubuntu's repository if you go with ATI; Nvidia is fine, though, to go with the one in the repository (though it may not be as up-to-date as you may want it). I say this 'cause i had trouble with them: i would get a screen, but upon restart, the system wouldn't fully load. I do not know if this problem has been fixed, but i'm not going to check, especially since the proprietary ones work fine. Installing from the repository, all that means is that you don't have to manually reinstall the graphics card drivers whenever a new kernel update is installed. This is due mostly to the Linux kernel being a monolithic kernel; the drivers use the kernel headers or sources found on your computer to build a compatible driver for your system. Both ATI and Nvidia release their drivers in a timely fashion; the betas just require slightly more work to track down. Windows 7 is better than Vista, but i don't use either. If i had to choose between the two, i'd go with Windows 7, just because i found it easier to use than Vista—though not as easy as XP. Not sure of its game support, but forcing XP compatibility may solve any problems.

It seems like this is the case, as these websites seem to all have RSS feeds. If it is RSS, then i highly doubt permission is needed since RSS is a publicly available feature of websites and that you are basically directing users to their page anyway (although the website you reference uses frames—which can be "closed"—to display these external websites).

You've seen those shows, the ones that visit haunted places to declare whether or not the place is truly haunted. While the designers and multimedia engineers may add video effects and music to make the show creepier than perhaps the experience of the cast, who may or may not have already gotten used to be in scenarios where random things happen that would freak out any average person; and while you may argue (assert) that what is recorded on these ghost-detecting devices is made-up, that does not prove that they are made-up. The very material recorded on these devices could very well hold up in a court of law, to where any accuser would find themselves embarrassed for ever doubting in the first place. Anyone who holds science as a shield should only accept their conclusion, unless perhaps you yourself have physical counter-evidence—for mere statements won't hold against anything recorded by their devices.

[1] I went back to make sure if you had asked me any questions concerning what i believe in, similar to what anwiii does (though they are off topic). Unless you are referring to what anwiii has been actively trying to do (which can be argued consists of ad hominem), the only questions you have asked me were rhetorical ones and those concerning God and the big bang theory. If, however, the rhetorical ones were really for me to answer, i would suggest from now on to inform me that you want a question that appears to be rhetorical to be answered. Anwiii may argue that i am arguing merely to discredit other people's beliefs, but that is to merely avoid the fact that the very statements i often attempt to "discredit" are themselves trying to discredit other people's beliefs (not that others doing so necessarily bothers me), to which even he himself has engaged in trying to discredit Christianity—which i might add, those who do so almost always tend to do so in a non-objective fashion; therefore i request for this objectiveness that is supposed to be there. It is only to my wonder as to why he decides to pick on me (and me only) within these debates. If you want to bash or attempt to discredit Christianity, go right ahead, but i would suspect you to do so formally so that we may get past the bias and emotion and into some facts. [2] I saw your points, yes, but as i mentioned, your points bear no weight since you have not provided any objective source that shows your points to be the case—therefore there is nothing from which these things follow from. I do not believe i am asking for much when i request for such material, especially since you have stated that you believe those things to be the case, multiple times. It would be a different case if they could be argued using pure logic and reason alone; however, your statements imply that it is obvious from history. Likewise, your statements about the pope do not prove that he is corrupt or evil; rather, you are merely following from some preconceived bias which you have yet to show to be the case. Remember, you are attributing evil to Christianity and claiming therefore that Christianity is evil—which is not an uncommon thing from unbelievers, but is arguably begging the question. [3] I did say that you could argue using the same logic that energy is eternal. However, i have also said that energy is not conscious, therefore incapable of moving on its own. Likewise, if it is said that it is illogical to ask if anything came before the big bang: if nothing came before the big bang (note you touch on space), then it follows that energy could not have always existed. Again, following from the absolute fact i mentioned means that the big bang could have never happened on its own. All physical things are restricted to the physical universe, to which some might call space-time; they bear physical limitations. Remove the physical universe, and energy goes with it. You could argue that the "laws of physics" break down during the big bang, but i fail to see how something unconscious can guide itself into a process that implies the very thing that is said to have been broken down (i.e. the "laws of physics")—let alone remain stable enough to do anything—and spit out a universe. Likewise, if nothing came before the big bang, there will be no universe. But since something does exist, we know that there must have been something before the physical universe. However, this entity that pre-exists the big bang cannot be physical, because the physical universe has yet to exist. Therefore this entity must be metaphysical in its nature. As stated before, an unconscious thing cannot act on its own, so, therefore, this entity, by necessity (i.e. in order for what we know to be to exist), must have a conscious. Likewise, bearing a conscious and being metaphysical does not entail that this entity can manipulate reality with its mind—that would require omnipotence. So, again, by necessity, this metaphysical conscious entity must be omnipotent. Since only one entity can be implied, i consider it, therefore, special pleading to suggest multiple similar entities (i.e. multiple gods). So, in short, we have one conscious, metaphysical, omnipotent God. [4] Just to make things clear, my understanding of "eternal" means no beginning and no end—anything that can come to an end must have had a beginning. My understanding of conservation of energy concerning particle decay means, even though the particle itself may decrease in mass during each use (or conversion), in the isolated system the total amount of mass will be the same because the decaying particles have not escaped the system. Nevertheless, from my understanding, it is mentioned that energy is considered eternal not because it really is eternal, but because it takes "forever" (literally billions and billions of years) just to die.[*] Otherwise, if energy really is eternal, how could anyone provide the lifespan of a proton, quark, et cetera? Billions upon billions of years may seem like forever, but that doesn't mean that they indeed last forever. E=mc2 and energy can neither be created nor destroyed means that in order for anything to make use of energy, energy must already exist. It does not entail that energy does exist, since it relies on the existence of energy. Regardless, as mentioned, it cannot be said that something which can come to an end is eternal. Unless you're going to tell me that science is yet again playing around with its wording that is impractical to any average person, then you would have to accept that energy cannot always exist. [5] Yes, but that is not what is considered Christmas, at least today. In fact, in your other post, you provided a definition of Christmas when you mentioned of the pagan rituals about the log with fruit and so forth. There is nothing of that sort mentioned in the Bible. What is mentioned is the wine and bread for the last supper, which we do in remembrance of what Jesus has done for us. This consists of no tree or presents. [6] Your question i did not answer for two reasons: 1. It is rhetorical and therefore thought it wasn't something to be answered. 2. It is a trick question: i have to assume that Christianity contains all the falsehood you assert it bears in order to answer it. But you have not given me any objective reason to safely assume the very thing your question wants (or needs) me to assume. Therefore i need not answer it, at least until you can provide me with some proper reason to assume such things. [1] That's mutually exclusive to me. You say it is the case with you, but i cannot see how you can believe in something and not support it. To me that ruins the point of believing in something. [2] Your use of the term "know" is ambiguous. Contrary to what you said, we do know about certain things, which have their own implications, which is the reason for the discussion. If we didn't know about these things that bear their own implications, then there would be no discussion. However, we do know about many things, which is what the discussion follows from. I'd say that you are only talking about the conclusion of a matter, were it not for you mentioning that if we did know anything for certain, there would be no discussion. The fact of a matter can be determine through simple deduction given the proper conditions. I would rather not get into a discussion that asks, "Do we really know anything?"

By "original post," i'ma assume you mean the first post you posted in this thread. When i look at it i see that you state: In order for me to make sense out of this, since my understanding of creationism obviously appears to differ from the one you imply, i would have to assume that what you mean by that is that life was started (presumably by some god) but left on its own to mutate into what we see today. You cannot say that is it obvious only to later say that you did not say that you support the theory of evolution. My understanding of creationism is separate, individual creations at due times. This is why i consider intelligent design slightly separate from creationism: because intelligent design allows for the theory of evolution; creationism doesn't. It would have been another story if you have said "intelligent design" instead of "creationism." You may not have asked, but you did suggest that i "politely inform" others of it. If i can't support it, i will most likely not inform others of it—unless perhaps i want it scrutinized. I don't argue to try and impress anyone, but you should realize you are nevertheless playing around with the word "know." It doesn't matter if we see it or not, if you don't know or if you believe that there is no way of knowing, then anything mentioned here shouldn't motivate you to post or respond. To post or respond may imply that you want to know. If you do not want to discuss, then you do not need to post or respond in this thread.

The only thing that i would say would cause problems is when it comes time to figuring out if the post is legit. No doubt the Creative Commons license encourages sharing the material provided herein, but as mentioned, not everyone will quote their source in these external sites, and it is uncertain whether or not these external sources will provide a post date for us to differentiate which one came first.Other than that, it should be the case that if you state that you do not want your post shared outside of Xisto in your post, i would suspect that to be a "moral right," which you are entitled to. Albeit, you may have to read their complicated version of the license in order to really determine what "moral right" means.

[1] He already told me his thoughts. I don't see why i should ask for it again after he said it. If you look back at my request, i asked if he could provide sources for his claims. [2] One of the points of study is to learn. I have not done extensive research on the boundaries of the first heaven; all i know is that the first heaven is our sky. I never said i don't understand this. Indeed, as you say, why would i promote something i don't understand? What is found in the Bible need not inform me of all things. These other things are merely things i ran across while reading the Bible, which i have found interesting. And, no, i am not saying that God uses the same words to describe the same thing. In fact, if you look at the Greek or Hebrew, you might just find a different word used (not to say that God wrote the verse). My validity should be questioned, but as mentioned before, it is not hard to differentiate between the heaven that God is stationed at and the lower heavens. I have already provided verses to show that the first heaven is our sky. I provide the verses because i cannot testify for myself. And even if i didn't understand what was written in the verses, why shouldn't i provide the verses that i have trouble understanding? Shouldn't others know the verses i am having trouble with? How else are they going to help me? To answer your question: in order to study the Bible, one of the first steps to study is figuring out why what is written was written for. Why didn't they go in-depth on the galaxies and stars? Because they did not need to; the focus was else where, whether it be on prophecy, Jewish history, or church related matters. Why should anyone go in-depth on unrelated matters? [3] While humans are not perfect, it does not follow that everything they do is a mistake. Being prone to mistakes doesn't mean they'll cause a mistake. The Bible doesn't suggest that in order for Scripture to be perfect that God had to write it. What an expert believes doesn't mean anything to me if they can't prove it. I could take in what they say with faith, but that will only work against me when it comes time to proving the very things i assert. If the authors therein wanted to say more, they would have done so—this is often seen in the form of numbers, for example, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel; 1 Kings, 2 Kings; et cetera. [4] What am i contradicting myself in? I do not support something if i am incapable of doing so. You say all that i support is not based on research but on faith because you believe that this stuff can only be accepted on faith. But you are not me; you have not done the studies i have done. It is not me who is contradicting myself, it is your perception of me that is contradicting me. [5] I did not cross any line. When did i tell you to do anything? But even with everything you say here, i still don't understand what you mean by "respect." Nevertheless, i guess i am taking this a bit personal by asking you what you define as "respect," but i am a bit amazed that the very person who asked me to be more personal is stating things that imply that you do not like such a thing. [6] How can you know what i said if you don't know my intentions? "Knowing" here implies more than just seeing and reading. [7] Hell was never created for humans but for fallen angels (Matthew 25:41). People and spiritual beings become eligible for hell when they sin; they will not go to hell if they have never sinned. Evil spirits (i.e. fallen angels) are not allowed in heaven. Concerning shadowx's position on working your way to heaven level by level, it sounds like something taken from the Buddhist religion. I cannot (currently) properly refute anyone asserting that position; however, i can say that i do not believe in such a thing, even more so if it involves reincarnation where you can become just about anything, from a turtle to a rock, in the "afterlife." I will also say that i find it weird that the process of reincarnation causes the person to lose the memory they had from their previous life (as it is the only possible explanation). By losing your memory, you can only be prone to an ever occurring starting point. To have your memory lost is like starting back on square one. Therefore you might as well assert that it is not possible to make it to heaven through this method except perhaps if you just so happened to be born into enlightenment, therefore skipping all levels and heading straight into heaven, which implies that there is no one keeping track of these things—that it is all random. [8] I cannot say that everything i have read i understand, but i can say that further study has allowed me to understand. This implies that in due time, i will eventually understand everything i do not currently understand. This is the same with anything. Take for example math. Do you understand every part of it, or did you need help or further study? Not being able to fully understand everything about something does not make the thing in question false. You say i can't do any good until i post my beliefs. Interesting rhetoric, though all those other questions that follow are likewise rhetorical. I am a non-Trinitarian—that is all you need to know; this topic need not go into whether or not this position is true or false (i already have my fill of that). This discussion is supposed to be on evolution versus creationism (though i am inclined to say that intelligent design is a matter that is slightly different to creationism). [9] Define "believe in them." But i never said i was better than anyone. I'ma assume you are referring to the part to where i said "i didn't ask for that." This does not imply, or is not supposed to imply, that i believe i am better. Rather, it was said in the hopes of directing the discussion to where it is supposed to be. I cannot support that position. You say in order for either the chicken or egg, there has to be two of each: male and female. By this the chicken would have never existed. You also state that in the beginning the only way to give birth is to lay eggs. How can an egg exist if there is no one to lay the egg? You say before the egg, there was cell division. It therefore follows that the creature that lays eggs would have come first, not the egg then the one that lays the egg. Therefore the chicken came first. If you say there is a problem or many complications when trying to figure out how things evolved into what they are now, how can you support the theory of evolution? [1] The pope is irrelevant to me. I am not a Catholic, nor do i believe that anyone on earth that was voted into power by man can ever be the representative of God. I am willing to go as far as to say that the last and final representative of God was Christ Jesus. Nevertheless, regardless of my beliefs, your statement leads to nowhere. What were you trying to prove with this? So the man is arguably the most esteemed person on earth. And? What does that show? It only shows that he is arguably the most esteemed person on earth, nothing more. Unless you have anything else to say on the matter, you can move onto any of the other choices from your previous statements. Personally, i was hoping you would have touched on perhaps "how Christianity took from other religions," or "how believers did horrible things to promote Christianity." What's next? [2] I've already mentioned the reason why you would always ask who or what made God; you place yourself in that dilemma unnecessarily. With a simple process of elimination, you will always end up with God as being eternal, not matter or the physical universe. Let us recount everything in hopes of understanding: Nothing can cause its own existence, therefore it must either have been created or it must have always existed. Hence we are left with merely two options that we, by necessity, have to apply to God and the physical realm (to which you appear to label "infinite energy"), one for each. The fact that you ask who or what created God merely means that you yourself realize the infinite regression behind that question. The infinite regression informs us that something creating God is illogical, therefore we are left with only one choice: God is eternal. Using the same logic you could argue that energy is eternal. However, any supporter of the big bang or of science can never hold that position. Why? Anything that is eternal will never come to an end. But energy is not an infinite thing, therefore will eventually come to an end (even if it is said that it will take billions of years on its own). The big bang, think about it: energy is not a conscious thing—if it were standing still, it would never move on its own. Therefore how could energy ever group itself up to the point of causing a universe? You cannot tell me that there was nothing before the big bang, for then you will have to explain where energy came from—you know, that thing you call infinite (i.e. "infinite energy"). If you argue that science says that it is illogical to ask, "What came before the big bang?" then you are, by necessity, forced to admit that energy is not infinite or eternal, and that energy could never exist; the only way for it to exist, then, is for it to have been created. But nothing can cause something into existence without a conscious, because a will or desire to do something requires a conscious. So what would happen if you weren't a supporter of science or the big bang theory and claim that energy is infinite? You'd still be left with the dilemma of an immobile entity, that is incapable of doing anything on its own. So while the energy may exist, it will never lead to life as we know it, at least without a conscious being. You might as well, then, assert that energy cannot exist in that scenario given the fact that there is matter and life in existence today. You say infinite energy and the big bang is easier to understand than what i have mentioned. But i find the way i explained it to be wholly acceptable the way i have explained it; yours implies dilemmas that cannot be avoided without accepting my position. [1] I was just about ready to post everything else i have written, only to find out that you came back and posted more. [2] Out of the three, only creationism is referenced. Churches may celebrate Easter and Christmas, but that doesn't make it Biblical. If it is really in the Bible, then you should be able to easily provide verses for your claims. Indeed, looking for the word "easter" or "christmas" or a celebration that wholly resembles what is celebrated today shouldn't be hard, then. [3] Remember when i said how am i supposed to know whether or not you are making something small (e.g. something you can count in one hand) into something big if you don't provide your sources? So we've heard on the news that some Catholic priests have molested children. I can count the amount of those that i have heard in my hand. This leads me to conclude that you are committing the fallacy of hasty generalization. You cannot testify for yourself; while it may be easier to just state things, if i did the same thing, whose statement would weigh more? Neither of ours; they would weigh the same. You have told me nothing new from all of the things i have heard unbelievers (mostly atheists) say, but repeating things does not make something true. [4] This thing touches on what i will say for number 6 (i.e. my response). But there are other things involved here: 1. What religion exactly are you alluding to? 2. The Bible doesn't state how many heavens there are (i do know, however, that the Qur'an states that there are 7 and that a certain Gnostic text says that there are 13—but that is irrelevant). 3. Read number 6 below. [5] Other people believing that the sky isn't the first heaven doesn't mean that it is not the case for the Biblical authors or those within Biblical times. We need not take on a post-modern understanding of what the sky is, for it is irrelevant. [6] Your response merely shows that you did not understand my question, even though i took the time to make sure that you would at least understand it. You say there are things stated in the Bible that can be found in pagan religions. I asked, to put it in another way: if that one thing is true, does it matter who says it or in what context it is said in? Does that make it false or untrue? I did not say that you said that paganism bears more truth or that it is the truth over Christianity. But does it make it untrue?

At first i was wondering where all that other stuff came from (as i don't recall asking for it), but i can now see the connection. However, i do see a major problem (which is very common in the secular world, by the way): using the word "Christianity" to include everything, even if it is not promoted by Christianity itself. You say Christianity promotes this and that, but what i see you talking about isn't from Christianity but from what believers have allowed outside of Christianity, which many they have "Christianized"—note, i am referring to celebrations and similar here. In other words, if it is not Biblical, then i cannot see how you can argue Christianity this and Christianity that. Sure, many things that people do (celebrate) today (note, this involves all kinds of people) can be traced back to pagan origin. But does that mean that you are justified in claiming that many of these things are of Christianity? No, for that is hasty generalization. You can say that Christians celebrate many of these things, but that does not mean that it is part of Christianity. Likewise, i have heard many argue (complain) that believers in the past have done such and such horrible things, but rarely, if at all, does anyone provide any actual information about these things. That is, in what point in time exactly did these things occur? And are you (or the source you got this information from) forming conclusions based on one small thing which you have for the sake of argument made big, or is it really something big? How can i tell? You say done for the sake of promoting Christianity. However, you will have to explain to me how or why anyone would try to promote Christianity, which means bringing salvation to that person, only to kill the potential convert in the end, therefore ruining the whole point of promoting Christianity. I can only conclude that such an illogical action has to be but something completely different than what is being illustrated here, if indeed it is the case that they were promoting Christianity. I remember being referenced a certain Wikipedia article in another topic (which was a small time ago) which was supposed to show the very thing they were talking about, but i can't remember the specific article (and i'm not going to go out to search for it, at least not right now). If you could point out at least one of these for your words to carry at least an ounce of weight, we can then begin a proper scholarly debate. Pick any to start off first (e.g. promoting Christianity only to kill the person in the end; Christianity, as it is properly defined, copied from others—since what you have said doesn't follow to this; or what-have-you), we can start on the others later, if you are willing. According to the Bible, our sky is the first heaven, as implied by the verses where Jesus "looks up to heaven," where Jesus mentions that he'll be "riding on the clouds of heaven" on the last day, and verses like Matthew 13:32 (this one requires a word-for-word translation to see the connection) and others. And, no, i am not referring to the heavens as galaxies. As i understand it, there are multiple layers of heavens. I am uncertain as to the start and ending point of the first heaven, that is, whether or not it starts at our sky and continues onward to the ends of the universe, or if it stops at the edge of earth's most outer atmosphere. But anything starting at the third heaven and upward cannot be accessed through physical means, and, for that reason, i am inclined to say that only our first heaven can be traveled (however limited that may be) by physical means. It is not difficult to differentiate between the heaven where it is said that God is stationed at (i.e. the last and final heaven) and the lower heavens. Context is key in determining what is meant. The ever-so-common "it is written by man" argument is impractical and fallacious. You cannot point out to me a book that was not written by man; does that therefore make everything written false or lose credibility? It not need be written by God in order for it to be true. Also, a lot of what is written consists of Jewish history and therefore does not concern spiritual things. I'd say the answer is within your own words. You speak of predictions, but a prediction, or any form of study, requires a conscious being that is capable and willing to do such a thing. Therefore, until a willing, conscious being takes the time to study the stars and space, astrology will not enter existence. Interesting statement. Nevertheless, i feel there are some things which should be safe to make a connection with. But true, it can be dangerous to link things up. You laugh, but i know what i wrote. Since i know how to retrieve them quickly, i will provide links to the ones i remember stating: [1]; [2]. Your use of the word "respect" bears the same ambiguity that i've seen from you before. That is, you appear to be using the word as if it were the same as "accept." In that sense, it is impossible to "respect" other people's beliefs, as they tend to be in conflict. And if you intend it to mean to honor theirs above yours, then that would involve dropping ours in place of theirs, which will only lead us back to square one. To say that something needed to create God is to put yourself into an infinite regression. That is, you will continually ask, "Who or what created God?" for there is no end to it in the position you place yourself in. Therefore, in order to avoid an infinite regression, you must, by necessity, conclude that God has no beginning and no end: He just is. The big bang cannot cause itself, for that implies that the big bang existed before its own existence. We know, for that reason, that nothing can cause its own existence—this is an absolute fact. Following from this absolute fact, the thing in question must have either always existed (i.e. bearing no beginning and end) or it must have been caused into existence by an outside force. There is no chicken and egg dilemma here (although i would practically always argue that the chicken came first). Concerning the big bang, for us believers, the question is whether or not "let there be light" implies a big bang. No wonder why you say it can't logically happen: you don't believe in the scriptures, you believe in word-of-mouth. In heaven there will be no such thing as sadness (Revelation 21:4). It is impossible for you to bear any pain or discomfort in heaven. Therefore the scenario you provide is not Biblical. Concerning the "Christian-pagan link" you speak of: Does one truth found in multiple areas make it false? (To remove the implication: that is a general question; i am not asking you to assume that heaven and hell is a truth. But does it make it false?)

Recently, i have been working on a PHP form generator, one that is very extensible and does all the code validation and work for you due to the fact that these features will be built into the form generator itself. All input fields can be made to bear their own properties and it will render these properties upon generating the HTML for the forms. It is all object oriented and will be easy to use and implement for anyone with at least intermediate knowledge of PHP. I'll be releasing the code publicly once it is finished. Default forms will include a basic form, a contact form, write-to-file form, and maybe a write-to-database form.

What is this "evidence" that goes against Creationism? From what i can gather from your statement, it deals with fossils, specifically dinosaurs. Genesis doesn't prevent the possibility of dinosaurs. If you are talking about the dating of each, on how one is earlier than the other, Genesis also specifies an order of creation, even if that order is limited to modern creation, therefore implying that there was an order with previous forms of creation. I see no difference with this from the theory of evolution. The things that are "missing" are the things that were false. What happens when you have mutually exclusive information within the same book? You say the information is missing; however, if you were to add it in, you would get mutually exclusive content, therefore your statement is illogical. You, however, are most likely referring to perhaps apocrypha or maybe even Gnostic text, but i have no idea—i have heard many, many statements like these, which never held any water. A "myth" is not something that is false or untrue. While society today has been very rhetorical with the word "myth" trying to get it to bear a different definition than what it really has, the word myth has nothing to do with falsehoods. Likewise, just because it is implied by other religions that their text were not to be taken seriously (assuming you state this merely because you personally find some of the things written in certain texts absurd), it does not follow that every other religion felt that their text shouldn't be taken seriously. Provide a link to that post of mine and you will see i do not hold that position which you say that i say i hold. Try the topic kobra500 started asking what would it take for believers in God to convince them of the theory of evolution. I will say that the support you speak of for the theory of evolution from the fossil record is not evidence, but not for the reason you state. It is not evidence because they, from what i have seen, are merely playing a guessing game, appealing to probability. They are already assuming the very thing they are trying to prove. You need more than an argument that states that such and such look alike, therefore one came from the other. There is a margin of error for each argument i've seen for the theory of evolution, therefore i cannot assume it or take it as a definitive fact—let alone a fact. As i've stated before in another thread, science isn't necessarily about facts: they tend to state things as if it were a fact, where sometimes you end up figuring out it was still being scrutinized and the size of its margin of error. The Bible, in the Book of Genesis and else where, by the plural word "heavens," implies that there are more than one heaven. The New Testament (one of Paul's writings) talks about a fellow that, while in the spirit, made it up to the third heaven, where there are many spiritual entities. Likewise, there is talk about the stars as well. When God created everything, at that point of creation, did astrology exist? No, therefore it cannot be said that God created everything that exists today. It is a common misconception, to include things of today with what God created. Obviously, therefore, what is meant by "everything" is merely, as stated in Genesis, the heavens and the earth.

Thousands of years? I'ma assume this is one of those statements for the sake of introduction. To correct the part i put in bold: Homosapiens are not the humans that you see today. Modern homosapiens, the humans you see today, are called homosapien-sapien. Therefore it is not a wonder as to why many Creationists declare that us humans have not lived for around 200,000 years, though they are merely stating this from an interpretation of the Bible. Also, to claim that a homosapien is a human is to assume the very thing you are trying to prove. So i do not see how you can consider such a thing as evidence. If you really and objectively do the research for both sides, you'll realize that much of the "evidence" declared for the theory of evolution can be applied and goes hand-in-hand with creationism. Take for example the implied structural design patterns seen within each kind of animal: fish requiring to live in water; birds have feathers and wings (even if they can't use those wings to fly); livestock have four legs with hooves; et cetera. There are other things i could mention, but i just wanted to give a brief example. Things that can be applied to both cannot be evidence for either and therefore must be dropped. What has to be considered when listening to the evolutionists speak is what are their assumptions; you have to get down to the root of the matter. For example, i once saw this video of this one guy speaking. He said that if humans evolved from this kind of sapien, then one would expect to find some, i think it was, hormone. He then shows a drawing of this hormone and concludes that we did evolve from this kind of sapien. This is not evidence for anything; it is fallacious at best: it's a kind of circular reasoning. However, many supporters of the theory of evolution (though i'm inclined to say all) won't see these fallacies. I thought about it as i was reading it. At first i thought that you would eventually get to the point of providing some evidence, trying to prove the theory of evolution, but that does not seem to be the case. You say "if humans never evolved ...", but that's a false dilemma and assumes the very thing you were supposed to be trying to prove. Life existing is not limited to the theory of evolution; likewise, since the theory of evolution cannot cause this universe into existence, evolution therefore becomes irrelevant, as without existence to begin with, evolution has no means of acting. This is self-contradicting; mutually exclusive. You say that if we were idiots, we would not exist, but you also say that our intelligence is the by-product of an evolutionary process. So how on earth did we survive with our former stupidity? Remember, evolution, as its definition, requires a great amount of time to reach a more complex state. This likewise contradicts reality. Many people who would be called ugly are married and have children; and there are cases where these children are good looking. Note that age is normally the deciding factor for looks. As for animals, a lot of them will do just about anything. I'd be amazed if you've never heard of a dog going after a person's leg in that fashion. Their passion-driven, uncontrolled selves will cause them to breed with anything, even if they are incompatible. Personally, i am still waiting for proof for the theory of evolution.

I haven't tried either shoutbox or looked into either, but from what is observable here at Xisto, the only features that the current one doesn't have are the first two that you have listed. But i don't really see the point in sending private shouts when the purpose of a shoutbox is to be public and when there's already a PM system. So far the only argument for the inferno one is that it is "bug free." There's no guarantee that switching to the inferno one will solve all problems, but a better, objective comparison would be more convincing. That is, you argue that the current one is buggy, do you have evidence outside of this forum? This forum has been modified heavily and the reason for the current shoutbox being slightly buggy could be due to those modifications. For example, the Army system was removed because it conflicted with the Credit system. Therefore installing a new shoutbox may not be as easy as you make it sound. I rarely if at all use the shoutbox, so having one or not doesn't really matter to me, but will switching greatly benefit this forum?

Have you tried numbers only? I don't remember what format i typed mine in, but if any characters other than numbers were used, it would be nothing more than hyphens.

Download a Linux distribution that supports LiveCD (e.g. Ubuntu), burn it to a CD and pop into the laptop and restart the laptop (if required) and let it run. Once inside the LiveCD environment, enter the main hard drive and start browsing around to see if there are any "important" files (i.e. things your dad has on the computer that you would want to keep also). If there aren't any, then just re-install Windows or something. If there are some, get a usb flash drive or something similar and store it in there, then just re-install Windows or something. Forget trying to figure out any passwords.

At that age i would have concluded it was their time to go regardless of any child's existence. This "disappearing and reappearing" act could probably be blamed on the technology used to detect and monitor these things—though i've never done any research in this area. For such an example to work, the reader would have to assume "cave men" as we understand them (likewise assuming they exist), and not people within the past thousands of years. From a physicalist's or materialist's point-of-view, it could be argued that outside, physical forces do motivate and control things to a significant extent. This uses the line of reasoning that there is a physical process behind every physical process, where you start at all thoughts are merely chemical processes and you work your way out to the planets and stars. Of course, you'll run into an infinite regression; however, with some social engineering and some advertising techniques, you can have your followers pay attention only to possibilities and gain; keep their mind occupied on what you had (have) them believe is "most important," therefore avoiding (for the most part) critical thinking in your clients. Using "facts from science" in your advertising may provide more customers.

KJV tends to include some old English in it. If you go to WalMart (assuming you have one in your area), you can most likely find a NIV Bible for about $5 that has thick pages (first Bible i've purchased). Most Bibles today that you find online have thin pages, some so thin that they feel like they're going to tear upon turning the page—not my kind of thing, but some seem durable enough. In other words, the "cheap" ones tend to have thick pages. As for the Qur'an, this one has thick pages: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/