truefusion

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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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.

What part did i lie about? The part that i doubt what you claim about John Calvin (and the others)? Or the part that you cannot continuing asserting things without proof? If the latter, then i would agree. You can most certainly continue, but that would be counter-productive and self-contradicting to the assurance you illustrate within your own posts. Also, if you would have said that this requirement of baptism is spiritual and does not deal with water, then that would indeed sound like something John Calvin would have said. The link you reference speaks about the physical-water baptism and the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit and the blood of Christ. The article does not emphasize that the water-only baptism is required for salvation. It only mentions that the spiritual form of baptism is required for salvation but that the water form of baptism is for affirmation of faith, which is what i have said about St. Augustine too.

Can a person who is dead claim that they are alive? Therefore death is instant. However, you seem to have trouble distinguishing from my words that the path to death can be either small or long. But it is expected of you not to consider what i have said. And this contradicts/proves what...? "We who were" implies both those who willingly chose to be baptized and those who thought it was a requirement. Not even the context of that verse fits within the discussion on whether or not baptism is required. The context just talks about the concept of baptism. The verses that contradict it are found in Deuteronomy and in Ezekiel, and probably elsewhere; it is thoroughly explained within Ezekiel chapter 18 when it talks about the sinful father and the righteous son, and the righteous father and the sinful son. The entire chapter of Ezekiel 18 is dedicated to the very explanation of what the sins of a person's father entails for the son. Ezekiel 18:19-20 completely destroys the concept of original sin. This completely changes the way other verses in the Old and New Testaments are to be perceived, especially since Ezekiel 18:1 says, "The word of the Lord." I never said Augustine's definitions invalidate the concept (that would be illogical, since the definitions are in support of the concept); i merely said the concept of original sin is not Biblical. If ye seek justice but commit no action, where then is justice? If ye see action against evil but speak against this action, where then is good? Why then seek the end to evil? For someone as self-proclaimed as you are, anyone would have trouble believing that you believe this to be non-fictional: However, you words and usage say otherwise. I am so glad that you have taken the time to provide anything from the authors you mention in order to prove anything you say about them. But?to speak seriously?i have done a lot of research on Calvinism, and i agree with a lot of things it mentions. For that reason i doubt John Calvin declared that baptism is a requirement for salvation. If he did any proclamation on baptism, i doubt he would affirm baptism to be a requirement for salvation. It only takes one argument from these authors that clearly show their position that they believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation for me to believe such. The only difficulty you would have in providing such writings from them is if there existed none that show the position you assert for them. If you don't intend on providing any of their writings, then you cannot continue to assert so assuredly of yourself of what they believe. Choice of what? The context implies choice of when to die. If science is pretty close to that position, then they would indeed be trying to play the role of God. But it should be noted: God gave life, therefore He has the right to take it away whenever He wants; anything given can be taken away.

To be clear, do you mean to limit these theories to the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution? Or do you have in mind other scientific theories? Nevertheless, whether you want to admit it or not, a scientific theory is not absolute. Remember when you said this too? Doesn't matter how many times they "pass the test;" a scientific theory is a scientific theory; they are a formulation of concepts and interpretations, whose premises are often taken as fact when these premises may have no proof for themselves. I can derive my own scientific theory from Genesis 1?in fact, i may have already done so in this topic. I would indeed be wrong if i really did assert that. While it may be the case that YOM can be found elsewhere in the Bible with a number before it, that doesn't mean you'll find it used in the same way it is used in Genesis 1. If you haven't noticed, these other instances are individual instances that do not belong to any noticeable group. The ones in Genesis 1, it is obvious that they form a pattern and therefore form a group. The YEC arguments you provided all rely on the usage of the word in other areas of the Bible. To say that Genesis 1 clearly shows that these "days" are 24-hour days but use arguments that are dependent on anything but Genesis 1 is self-contradicting. But look what you say here: Excellent, you finally understand what i was trying to say. ...No, i doubt you do. Since it is apparent that you will never admit that it is logical to claim an undefinite length of time because there is no sun at that point in time, Genesis 1 will always appear illogical to you. It is no wonder why you try so hard to argue that these are 24-hour days, because there is no other way for you to argue that Genesis 1 is illogical. In other words, if it ain't illogical, you are unwilling. This is simple logic: if it is illogical one way but logical another way, then you must accept the way that is logical. After all, that is what being reasonable is all about. See, i knew i could doubt you. First you say that the words "day," "night," "evening" and "morning" can exist without the sun, and now here you are claiming this. What will you say next? What you have been trying to show is that the interpretations of Genesis 1 have been unscientific. However, even if these interpretations contradict reality, to even state that they are unscientific, in that they contradict scientific theory, begs the question (let me know if you need me to explain to you why such logic begs the question). Likewise, it may be so that the interpretation is false, but the account is true. And as mentioned before, scientific theories are not absolute. To add to this, the dating of the Earth, supposedly 4.55 billion years (this age is itself an estimation which is based on other axioms, assumptions), is Biblically allowed; as mentioned before, the Earth was already in existence before the First Day. The appearance and order of the species is Biblically explainable, as i have so been arguing. The concept of universal rebirth that i have stated a while back explains prehistoric creatures. Stellar formation, assuming the formation of our universe, that is, the stars and planets therein, any explanation is practically Biblically allowed, since the formation is Biblically vague. The Genesis account does indeed contradict the theory of evolution, but the theory of evolution isn't a strong theory to begin with. And once again, we see you assume a definition where it does not fit. And once again, because of your assumption, you claim something is wrong. Which, once again, you have built another straw man. Just because you want "light" to bear the extreme scientific definition for it, doesn't mean the author of Genesis 1 wanted it to. Let's even assume your view of the Biblical authors just for a second to even show what i am saying is true. You say the Biblical authors did not understand basic science. Cool. Now, why then would you even try to assume that what they called "light" is the extreme scientific definition of light? Are you even listening to yourself at this point? I do believe the problem here is not with the Biblical authors but with you and your forced assumptions. What you speak of, therefore, is irrelevant; whether you finally see that is beyond me. The only way they would not have been born is if we assume that they could not have previously existed. However, the concept of universal rebirth that i have stated a while back does not make that assumption but allows for them to have previously existed; and the fact that they are dead today implies that they used to be alive. If i were to assert argument from ignorance, i would not be out of place. Nevertheless, since i feel i would be somewhat inconsistent, i won't. But i don't need evidence?we are talking about theories. Be that as it may, as i have so been arguing, the creatures mentioned in Genesis 1 are those that are still alive today. Following from that, since we have discovered fossils of prehistoric creatures and since the Earth was in existence before the First Day, it is safe to say that at some point in time, there was life at some point in time before the Third Day (you say Fourth Day, but plants, according to the Bible, were in existence before the Fourth Day?so, technically, i do have evidence). Again, if you wish to avoid context, that is your choice. But if you are going to continue, then i request that you please stop making statements that avoid context. Any other time i would not think that i would require providing example after example just to show that "all" is defined by context. Here is another example: I see a friend of mine has a bag of M&Ms. Knowing that he is willing to share, i ask for all the green M&Ms. Am i asking for all the green M&Ms to have ever existed, whether digested or yet-to-be digested, or just the ones he has left in the bag? Please do not avoid this question, i want you to answer it (if i don't receive an answer, i will ask again till you do). Also, would you like more examples that illustrate that "all" is defined by context? I have plenty more. Please, do ask for more. Let's not forget that you call me dishonest for also mentioning that in Genesis 2, Adam provides a name for the animals. As mentioned before, the Bible states that there are several heavens. Explicitly, the Bible mentions three heavens; however, it also implies that there are more than three heavens, since the three heavens it mentions are not the ones that God is said to be stationed at. To say that the Bible says that none of these heavens were created until the Fourth Day is illogical and not Biblical, especially if we consider that there would be no space to put the Earth in if none of these existed until the Fourth Day. A "heaven" need not consist of stars and planets in order to be called a heaven. Stars and planets merely help us distinguish things visually. You can't make something out of nothing. For that reason, even if it is the case that the Earth was formed, the thing it is made out of was at one point caused into existence (created), therefore, in essence, the Earth was created. As mentioned, it is impossible for us to state whether or not the sun came before the Earth or vice versa, because we weren't there to see it happen.

I would change this: #left {margin-top: 10px;float: left;width: 160px;font-size: 13px;padding: 10px;background: #2F2C2C;border-left:1px solid #FFE788;border-right:1px solid #FFE788;border-top:1px solid #FFE788;border-bottom:1px solid #FFE788;}To this: #left {margin-top: 10px;float: left;width: 160px;font-size: 13px;}#left div {padding: 10px;background: #2F2C2C;border-left:1px solid #FFE788;border-right:1px solid #FFE788;border-top:1px solid #FFE788;border-bottom:1px solid #FFE788;}That way you can do: <div id="left"> <div>Navigation box #1</div> <div>Navigation box #2</div> </div>

The problem is how you structured the content. #left should be its own container, whose only purpose is to float to the left; it should not have any other styling (except perhaps width). Therefore you can shove other boxes in there and they will all be on the left side and they can have their own styling.

You don't have to believe that God exists in order for the interests to conflict. Why you believe that you have to is beyond me. If you require another summary of what i said that already does away with your need for questions, then here it is: Failure to repent leads to death. Have you forgotten that it takes time for their deaths to occur? Have i not already mentioned that God does things as He so desires, which involves doing things at set times? What reason have i given you to assume that these things are instant? Just because death is an instant thing, doesn't mean that they weren't given enough time to repent. But what do you care? You'll just continue stating "God sticks to a timetable" as to imply that God is inconsiderate or whatever you constantly mention without taking into account what i have said. There is a benefit for you to being reasonable, you know. What Paul illustrates in his writings is that Adam introduced sin into the world. This does not mean that since Adam sinned, that everyone that is born is now guilty of sin. Otherwise Paul would not have said "because all have sinned" at the end of verse Romans 5:12, for if it were the case that Adam caused everyone who has yet to exist to automatically become sinners, "because all have sinned" would be irrelevant and therefore not worth mentioning. Since Paul is the author of the Epistole to the Romans and to the Corinthians, it follows that he would share the same concept. Therefore there is no reason to assume that he meant anything different than what he said in Romans 5. Psalm 51:5 does not entail that the person was born a sinner. It merely mentions that his mother was a sinner and that he was born in a sinful world. I know of the verses that people have used to try and prove the concept of original sin (and if i'm not mistaken, the concept was first introduced by St. Augustine). For that reason i can safely state that the concept of original sin is not Biblical. Since you were able to pull some of these verses up, it should be safe to assume that you know of the verses that contradict the concept of original sin (not that they are required to be mentioned anyway), so i don't think i need to take the time to list them here. I do not know why you would get emotional over something that you believe doesn't exist. Maybe it is because somewhere in your heart you believe He does. Whatever the case, when you mention something that implies that God is inconsiderate, sadistic, evil, or whatever it is you have so said, you are merely bringing emotions into the topic. The tsunami and the people may have been very real, but that doesn't make the fictional scenario you make out of it true. I know that some Christians believe that baptism is a requirement, but the church fathers you point out? While i have not read any works on Martin Luther or John Calvin, i know that Paul didn't make baptism a requirement when he was proclaiming the Gospel, and i know that Augustine's view on baptism is a form of baptism that can occur here on earth or spiritually. From what i have heard from Calvanists, i highly doubt John Calvin argued that baptism is required for salvation (though i don't think John Calvin is considered an early church father). I have no comment on Martin Luther, but since your claim on the other three is dubious, you'll have to provide proof of that. The fact that before the new convenant only Jews (those who are and those who later become one) could be saved is irrelevant on whether or not using a book of the Old Testament to explain something should be allowed. If you do not want an explanation, especially a Biblical explanation, then do not make statements that imply that you do. What it comes down to is, "I don't want it to happen to me, therefore let it not be done to others." It follows, therefore, why you would like to see everyone die a natural death, especially in their sleep, because "everyone" includes yourself. As it is written, you reap what you sow. They merely suffer what they suffer in accordance to the suffering they have caused. Again, emotions. If all the emotions you bring into this topic are not complaints, then i can only imagine what a complaint is to you. The scenario you were supposed to picture was not God stopping a tsunami, but God causing the tsunami. But we already know your emotions on that, and it is as i have said it is?self contradicting. Anyone who wishes for evil to cease to exist would not wish for everyone to die a natural death, especially in their sleep, for that is to give evil people their entire life to commit evil. Ignoring the irrelevant and emotional rhetoric, i'll say: There is no need to mention what is obvious. But if you have trouble seeing why there can only be one path to heaven, then i'll point it out to you: they are mutually exclusive.

The zombie maps will only be available for the more pricier editions of the game. Otherwise they may be available as DLC. Note that having the maps does not necessarily imply that you'll see Nazi Zombie missions in the game. What you can be assured of, however, is that the maps themselves will be available.I won't be purchasing the game until the PC community reviews it enough (and perhaps until the price goes down a bit). While i am more fond of Treyarch than InfinityWard (since what got me hooked to the series was mostly Treyarch's doing), Activision is nevertheless behind it all, who i am not fond of.The predator missile immitation, IIRC, is called "Arch Angel." The controls on the Arch Angel is far superior to the predator missile, as it is not necessarily a missle that can only go in one direction. And whether or not you can do loops around the stage with the Arch Angel is beyond me. The currently online preview of Black Ops has shown only a few kill streak rewards: the RC, care package, the Arch Angel and an airstrike. I'm pretty sure UAV is available too, but i'm not certain whether the portable camera is a kill streak reward or extra equipment.

This has been the first question you have asked in this topic. You've already hinted about PHP's XML parser and that JavaScript can traverse the DOM, which implies you have a general idea on where you can obtain the corresponding documentation. The documentation on each is available on the internet, many of them bearing examples (especially if we're talking about the PHP documentation). If that is the only list, then just navigate the DOM till you run into the list. I know you posted this topic under the PHP forum, but this is more of a job for JavaScript. You can use getElementsByTagName() in JavaScript. If that is not the only unordered list, then you will have a heck of a time distinguishing it from the other lists. You'll have to provide an attribute (generally ID is used, but anything can be used so long as it is unique) that helps distinguish it from other unordered lists. If you use the ID attribute, then you can use getElementById() in JavaScript. Attempting to parse and traverse the HTML through PHP is much of a chore compared to JavaScript. Always pick JavaScript over PHP when you only need to traverse and manipulate the DOM wherever possible. Only as a last resort should you go with PHP.

I've given up in trying to be unique with my creations. For that reason i say, it is not about trying to be unique but who does it better.

Yes, i realize your argument runs along the lines of young-earth creationism. Science is often left out because science is not worth mentioning except when it is relevant. What part of science is relevant here? What part of science is contradicted here? Is it not the parts of science that are still under scrutiny? Therefore science need not be mentioned. The PDF you referenced provided more than just "the Hebrew allows for undefinite lengths of time." The very same PDF said the pattern found in Genesis 1 is not found anywhere else in the Bible. Therefore the YEC argument you provided has no bearing since it depends on there being a similar pattern found elsewhere in the Bible. The fact is that there is no other numbering pattern found in the rest of the Bible, so to argue "the lack thereof" is illogical. There cannot be evening and morning without day and night. Therefore day and night is introduced in the First Day. Then there is even and morning. Though the Bible was written by man, the presumed position of Genesis 1 is the perspective of God at the time of creation (this is made obvious by the phrase, "And God said ..."). For this reason it is safe to assume that "day," "night," "evening," and "morning" are words whose definition differs from what is practically used by humans until otherwise Biblically stated. If you recall, 24 hours, let alone an hour, cannot be defined without the sun being in its orbital position and the Earth's rotation and revolution. But the sun is not introduced till the Fourth Day. Therefore it cannot be said that these "days" represent any form of time that is wholly dependent on the sun in combination to the Earth's rotation and revolution. As for the CAI article you reference, their entire argument can be summarized to, "Why didn't God choose these methods?"—as if to say they are the only methods. My response to the article, therefore, should be obvious. To be subject to test is to be subject to correction. For that reason it cannot be said that if religion conflicts with science that religion is therefore false, for either would be on equal terms with each other concerning their validity. Well said. The extreme scientific definition of light is not what is assumed in Scripture. Scripture assumes the practical definition of light, which has always been known to be visible and give off some form of heat (examples being when some angels were introduced; Moses's face after spending some time in the presence of God; et cetera). The Earth being frozen and therefore no life could continue on Earth is something i introduced a while back, in relation to prehistoric creatures and their end. Indeed, prehistoric creatures would eventually die out, and that is the whole point, as it would explain a lot of things on why these creatures are found to be dead today. Yes, it would perfectly follow from my assertion that the creatures created in the 5th and 6th Days are those that exist today, since the others have died out. And so having prehistoric creatures dead at this point does not contradict Scripture. I should mention that the fact that Adam takes the time to name all the animals (except those in the sea) should imply that the creatures created that are mentioned in Genesis 1 are merely those that exist today. You may want to rephrase this. The word "creation" implies no pre-existence. Therefore to say "AFTER creation" is not illogical and is virtually stating the definition of "creation."

You see, when a human seeks for justice, they tend to not care about the conclusion of the guilty so long as the conclusion is undesirable to the guilty. This is shown in your own words. But something like hell, people should be given the chance to change. Again, the emotions you bring up are merely conflict of interests between your interests and God's interests. Yes, God cares about what the consequences of His actions would bring to any one people. Whether you want someone to rest in hell for all eternity for whatever reason is irrelevant (to God); God'll take care of things how He sees fit. The concept of original sin is not Biblical. Therefore if a person has never committed a sin in their life, they need not a Saviour. If they die before committing a sin, then they will be admitted into heaven without question. This topic isn't about finding a solution to the problem of evil but the philosophical "dilemma" of the problem of evil. The philosophical "dilemma" argues that since there is evil in the world, there cannot be a (personal) god. The "dilemma" is more an emotion than a philosophical thing due to the presumptions often brought into the thought. But if one were to think clearly on the subject, one would realize it is not a dilemma at all. If you wish to create an unrealistic and non-Biblical scenario in your head on the character of God, that is your choice. But know that it is purely fictional. It is no-wonder, then, why anyone would end such a fictional story with "complete and utter b*****d!"whatever that last word is. Early death of the innocent or righteous is Biblically explained (IIRC, in the Book of Jeremiah). Any emotions tied to the death is merely conflict of interests. The main reason why anyone would wish for a loved one not to pass away is for selfish reasons (i.e. "I don't want them to leave me"). If it weren't for all the times i've seen similar responses from unbelievers, i would still be left wondering how you can make statements that imply what you consider justice, only to go on and make a statement like this one that contradicts the very implications of your previous statements. I am no longer amazed at the amount of illogical construction of an unbeliever's statements; i can now only expect it. When God does away with evil, you guys complain: "How could He do such a thing!?" And when He doesn't do away with evil, you guys complain: "What on Earth is He doing!?" Your entire post screams with this inherent contradiction. People are blessed that God has more patience than any human. For if God were any human, He would have given up on the human race a long time ago.

I do not know what level i am looking for. The books you listed should be fine, though. What i am looking to learn is something on a "compiler level," so to speak.

The godandscience.org website was a website i would frequently visit in the past. I know for a fact that the author of that website is an old-earth creationist, and it is no surprise that the PDF you reference from that site yields a conclusion of old-earth creationism. If you require it, here is a summary of the PDF (in my own words): The author of the article in PDF format introduces two arguments from two differing sources that contradict the other after briefly mentioning about John MacArthur’s Study Bible. The first argument is from Gleason L. Archer, who claims that the six days of creation are to be considered as 24-hour days. The second argument, from Norman L. Geisler, claims that the Hebrew allows for any length of time for these "days." In the quote, Norman L. Geisler references Hosea, chapter 6, to try and prove his point. From there the author of the article in PDF format heads into the Hebrew himself to try and form a formal conclusion on the matter. The author declares that the verses in Genesis 1 are unique in comparison to the rest of the Bible due to the fact that all the instances of the Hebrew word "Yom" in Genesis 1 lack the prefixes founded in the other instances of the Hebrew word "Yom" from the rest of the Bible. From his research, he confirms that Norman L. Geisler, the one who asserted that the Hebrew in Genesis 1 does not define a length of time for the word "Yom," is the proper way to interpret Genesis 1. He goes on to say that the only thing that Gleason L. Archer said that was true was that none of these Days should be prefixed with the article "the" when translating it to English. The remainder of the PDF is mostly a repeat of what has already been mentioned but with the conslusion highlighted in bold text. Anyone can verify this information. No one has messed around with the link and therefore can download the article themselves. Anyone can also verify the information in the article, on whether or not Genesis 1 does show unique characteristics from the rest of the Bible, for there are many sources where one can obtain the Hebrew of Genesis 1 and the remainder of the Bible. As for me, i have an interlinear Bible, ISBN-10: 1-56563-977-4, which i make use of when needed. If you did not mean or intend to use that PDF as part of your argument (since it clearly contradicts your argument), i would say it is too late for you to appear consistent any more. Scientifically is not the issue here, especially when one can pick and choose scientific theories of the creation (or beginning) of space and time. Starlight on the First Day and onward before the Fourth Day cannot be Biblically possible. The stars weren't explicitly introduced until the Fourth Day. For that reason, if you claim that the plants require the sun for light, then i have no other choice but to assume that your argument implies that if no sun, then no light, period. The only thing we can assume about the First Day concerning light is the obvious properties of light (which would include heat). We can try to assume that this light is being emitted from God (though obviously by God), but there is no information in the Bible that we can derive what the definitive source of this light is. Since the other sources of light surrounding the Earth did not exist until the Fourth Day, it is, therefore, not safe to assume that the First Day implies the beginning of the Big Bang if one were to do so. http://www.virtualsalt.com/think/matfall3.htm (About one-third of the page in you will find "contradictory premises.")http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html (All the way at the bottom you will find "contradictory premises.") The word "omnipotence" is not found anywhere in the Bible. You are right when you reference Revelation 19:6, as the closest thing to "omnipotence" in the Bible is "Almighty." Almighty means greater than everything in everything, hence why God is also called the "Most High," because He is above everything. Almighty just adds to "Most High" by going beyond position and into power. The paradoxical question commits the fallacy of contrary premises because the first premise assumes the Biblical almighty for omnipotence and the second premise assumes a definition for omnipotence that contradicts the Biblical almighty. One word bearing two contradicting definitions within the same statement is an obvious fallacy and is simply deceiving. And you are forgetting that context is what helps define a word. If you are not willing to provide a reason from the Bible and not a dictionary (which is irrelevant as a source when arguing about a word where context defines it) on why it can only mean every single creature to have ever existed, then just say so. If i were to go to the beach and order someone to catch all the fish of the sea, does that mean even prehistoric fish? Or does it mean those that relate to our own time? Remember, Adam, the first human, existed around this time; that is "now."

Does this page show anything for you?

I have two questions for you: 1. Assuming you went to college or a university for computer science, what books did you have to get for class (if you still remember)? 2. What books do you base your classes on when teaching?

Excellent, you finally decided to agree with what i said. But you also did more than that, you provided a link to a PDF that supports what i have been arguing this whole time. Your statement above this one begs to differ. I have no idea how to take this; whether you are disagreeing with my claim or agreeing with it or both, i have no idea; all three are possible. I'll split it up in two, therefore. Your starting statement in the post i am responding to says it is more than a day, an indefinite period of time. Yes, lacking the sun would indeed make "day" and "night" undefined in length. As mentioned, whether taken literally or not, the same conclusion would be derived. Therefore my choice in taking it literally will not change. I can only hope that you are taking this seriously. First you link to a PDF that shows that these days are unique to the entire Bible and that they are indefinite to their length of time, and now you are claiming that these are regular 24-hour days. If you wish to change stories for every single statement you make, please warn me ahead of time. Nevertheless, my argument never said that we should start assuming that the (Fourth,) Fifth and Sixth Days are to be taken as 24-hour days. If the First Day in the Bible was not mentioned, then you would have an argument. But, thankfully, since it is mentioned i need not do any pretending in order for my statement to be Biblically accurate. The problem with your argument is that you are trying to make the sun the only source of light, but that is not Biblically accurate. Read the First Day as many times as you need to in order to see that light was already in existence before the Third and Fourth Day. But to mention something about plants not being able to grow without sun light: Do plants receive sun light when they are underground? Actually, the fact that the question assumes an omnipotence that isn't Biblical is what leads the question to being fallacious, causing it to form contrary premises that yield the same conclusion. You are right, it is fortunate that there are those out there that can point out that the question commits the fallacy of contrary premises. The Bible does mention what kind of animals were created, starting with fish and whales, and birds of the sky and ground, then insects, reptiles and mammals, et cetera. Your argument is that these include every single creature to have ever existed. My argument is that there is no way to Biblically derive that. My argument asserts that it is more Biblical to assume that it is the creatures of our time due to the pattern of the Bible that it only mentions what concerns us. What other reason do you have that explains why other things that are in existence are not mentioned?

Any scholar who trip themselves over such a simple topic requires doing more research and have to do away with any presumptions of emotion and of God. The supposed theological dilemma of the "problem of evil" is a topic already dealt with, though implicitly, in the Bible. The Bible affirms that there is evil in the world, the Bible affirms that bad things happen to righteous people (note, not "good people" since "good" is not a Biblically accurate term; that is, Biblically, doing good is not enough to be good). "Good" is a word that can only be used for those who have never sinned in their entire human life. God is both willing and able to do away with evil. Why is there still evil? Because God has set times for when He will be doing away with evil and He does not defer from these set times. This consistency of God people may not like. Also, the fact that God provides warnings before His final act and gives people a chance to repent, some people may not like. But appeal to consequences (the most common thing that causes people to have trouble with the theological dilemma of the "problem of evil") does not prove that God is not capable or not willing. If you dislike His ways, then you need not call Him God. But realize that disliking His ways does not prove that He does not exist.

You could add a border on each side to fill the gap in width. I would recommend a color that hasn't already been used on the site (excluding the image itself) but matches with the image.

My entry:

The site should be (re)checked in all browsers; it looks different in each (so far it looks the best in Opera). Also, forget about the (a) flash slider; there are many JavaScript scripts that accomplish the same thing. I would also change the smaller text font to a sans-serif font and have the layout in equal width of the banner.

The code illustrated does not show how the classes and functions are being used, nor does it show which ones were used. There is no point in attempting to debug the code you have provided as there are other factors that have been intentionally left out that we require knowing, some of which you may not even know of.

The file was originally created under FL Studio 8, but i did make some modifications to the song under FL Studio 9. I did not think it would be that much of a problem using an older version of FL Studio that is merely one version below the one i use. But i can confirm that the file is not corrupt, as i have downloaded it myself and it opened perfectly under FL Studio 9. If you have purchased FL Studio, then you can download the latest FL Studio (since the license allows for unlimited updates to the program). If you have downloaded FL Studio illegally, then tough noogies.

FL Studio 8, eh? Here is a file that i wouldn't mind sharing (as my original intention was to release it to the public anyway). I would be interested in any remix that you make of it. It is not complete, but you can still work with it so long as you have the same plug-ins unlocked. Can't guarantee the percussion, though.http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

That would be part of one of Paul's writings, founded in 1st Corinthians 10:13.