truefusion

In Darwin's Book, the Origin of Species, Darwin allows for things like muscle structure to be passed down and to be proof for the theory of evolution. He gives the example of a bug fighting against the wind; the bugs that don't fight against the wind die off, while the ones that do grow bigger wings, and as their wings continue growing, they'll eventually spawn a new species. He also, oddly enough, gives the example of a few humans being shipwrecked out at sea: those who knew how to swim live, those that don't were likely do die (though the way he explained it made it seem like they will die). So bearing knowledge of something is supposed to support the theory (though swimming does improve muscle structure)? Anyway, you should also have heard of the finches, with the bigger beaks due to the food in their area becoming harder to break open. The reason why de-evolution is unheard of or non-existent within the theory is because of the implications that the premises of the theory imply, the definition of natural selection being one of them. The finches are a perfect example for making my request possible or reasonable in that what you show me has to be observable today from a living organism, since fossils are generally ambiguous. However, i would probably allow for fossil analysis as proof if the analysis does not commit any fallacies concerning what truth is (not what it can be). The problem with the finches is they started "de-evolving," that is, once the rain came and made the food easier to break open, their beaks started reducing back to their previous state due to the obvious lack of maintenance that muscles, or health in general, require. Therefore, if you provide me with something that is supposed to prove the theory that is health related, you have to show me something that is not only beneficial to the species—since (death from) unbeneficial things is not proof within itself for the theory—but that also does not require maintenance for either the current species or its offspring. For even if it is the case that the health of the parents allowed for a healthy-looking child to be born, the child's health, and their parent's health, can still degrade over time if not maintained—and in today's world, it is generally not maintained. Biology, at least the medical sciences, is supposed to have hundreds of proofs for the theory of evolution; however, from what i've seen it's all health related—things that can exist even from a creationist's point of view. And they were all unbeneficial to the species, even though these things don't necessarily cause the species to die. From this observation, from looking at how the medical sciences is all about trying to fix problems that occur on a micro level, which may eventually show on a macro level, it makes it almost impossible to believe that something beneficial that doesn't require maintenance will (eventually) occur. At best it reduces the possibility of something such as that as described by the theory of evolution tremendously, nearing impossibility. For that reason, since from what i have observed is no different than what is allowed by creationism, there has been no incentive to consider the theory of evolution in its entirety. For the only thing that basically differentiates it from creationism is natural selection that spawned new species due to previous or ancestral mutations.

[1] He said He would never again attempt to destroy all of mankind via a flood.link Revelations doesn't mention any flood taking down the population. [2] There's no reason to forgive those who don't want forgiveness.

Depends on their arguments. True, i haven't found one online that actually proves God's existence from morality, but i've been working on one that at least shows that without God there cannot be any objective or absolute morals. My argument argues from absolute consequences and a little bit from omnipotence, but it's still under development, especially since i accidentally deleted my notes. It's quite possible i've already seen a paraphrased form of them, if not the same one exactly. But if they run along the lines of "be good for goodness's sake" or "helping the species advance," then i wouldn't be interested. But the fact that you mention that those arguments often include subjective morality implies that it may actually presuppose something similar to being good for goodness's sake. In either case, i would have to watch them to find out.

Hmmm. I believe in both (i can't deny things like cancer), but here's the catch for me concerning evolution: i don't believe any of them can cause one species to evolve into another species, due to what is observable. Ironically, it was because of observation that the theory came about, but if i can say the "very same observation," observation debunks some of the theory's premises for me. For that reason, while i may prefer to say this in another way, in attempt to answer your previous question: Show me an evolution that is beneficial to the species that can be passed down to its offspring that doesn't require maintenance to maintain its evolution—that is, that doesn't cause the species to de-evolve for lack of maintenance. Whether this task is difficult or not, i don't know, but i would say it's wholly specific and not general as to cause ambiguity and that it is at least faithful to the theory itself. Err, i should add, something that is currently going on today. You'll find that the Christians that accept the theory of evolution deny the book of Genesis or make God appear to be a general god and not the Biblical God, though they nevertheless claim to believe in Jesus and God. In their case, it is often the case that merely believing in God and Jesus is not the same as believing the Bible. That is, they can say they believe in God and Jesus while denying what is written. However, the Biblical standard for belief goes further than just believing in the possibility of their existence. As for the pope, he probably accepted it just to see if Christianity would become more acceptable and not necessarily due to him believing that there was evidence for the theory of evolution. The proper usage is raises the question. I saw a drawing of that in a video once. You know, from the theory itself, a "crociduck" is possible, that is, if given the time of course. The crociduck could actually mate with other, normal ducks, since it wouldn't have lost its previous sexual organs, that is, assuming it can hold in any temptation for wanting to gulp down any other ducks. In fact, it is more likely to survive longer than a normal duck. It could even fend off predators more easily. The only unfortunate part is that it will most likely lose its ability to fly, though, unless perhaps its body grew bigger and if its head weren't so big as the drawing.

Personally, i would like to see you pull off number 6. I haven't seen any valid reasoning for "scientific morality" that actually showed science as the root or source for morality. From what i've seen people always bring in their (subjective) morals and use that as a standard to apply to "scientific morality."

The examples don't prove loss of free will, especially when you gave the example of Bob deliberately picking the soda he doesn't like over the one he does. In other words, temptation != loss of free will; likewise ignorance != free will. You were on the right track, however, when you mentioned or alluded to the processes of the brain being chemical processes, but the examples weren't in support of it. But you did bring up another topic within the examples themselves: that food companies would (and i know they do) go out of their way to mess around with your brain just so you can become addicted or attracted to their products.

Oh, um, well, i'll start from top to bottom. The first one has the best banner; though, personally, i would have liked it more if it were slightly brighter and if the gradient was flipped horizontally. The typography is also good. The second one, not really fond of that one, sorry. The third one has a nice color scheme and makes more clear the point of the site than the other layouts. The forth one has a nice background and footer. Using icons for the navigation also helps make the user (visitor) make decisions faster for when choosing where to go next on the site. But the Vista icon and the navigation icon seem to be competing with each other in sense of quality, and i can't say if they match the site's overall look. The fifth one really makes known what it is without even having to read the content, even if it doesn't show what the forums is about without first reading the content, all with a nice theme. The typography is good here too, but still lacking variety. Comparing the first template with this template in typography is about the same, but this one seems to be asking for more variety. I didn't get much into the cons for each. And I know you've done research on this before, but you should look into more user interface design theories and patterns, and also do some (more) research on user experience.

Here's a modified version of the script. Since i am uncertain how you keep track of a user's log-in information, the only lines you would have to modify to consider logged-in users are lines 60 and 61, and you'll also have to re-insert the database information in lines 12 through 15, of shoutbox.php. The differences between this code and the one provided on the website you referenced include: it now works without JavaScript enabled, it considers whether or not magic quotes are on, i renamed index.html to index.php, and i removed a few unnecessary things.shoutbox.zip

If you're using JavaScript to verify if the fields were filled, you should avoid doing so, as it's not the right way to go about it. If you have the PHP script verify if the fields are field, then that is the right way to go about it, but that would mean the problem was in the PHP script. If you followed the tutorial to the dot, then perhaps the tutorial was too simple for what you wanted to accomplish. I haven't analyzed the tutorial to see how complex it is, and also to see what methods it uses to verify user input, but the information you provided on your current problem isn't enough to help you solve the problem. If you have more than basic knowledge in PHP or JavaScript, then you should be able to solve this problem, but if you're looking for us to solve the problem for you, you'll have to provide way more information. Edit: posted a bit late. I'll analyze it in a bit.

The fifth one, hands down (though the third one isn't that bad). You could (should) make one that takes all the pros of each and mix it to form one that is better than the ones shown here.

Try this (though i don't have the time to test it out): $query = sprintf("INSERT INTO shoutbox(user, message) VALUES('".$_SESSION['username']."', '%s');", mysql_real_escape_string(strip_tags($message)));

Basically, but this assumes the user is always logged in. Also, make sure you have filtered that session variable and that the session variable gets parsed within the string.

For a second there i was starting to think (think—how ironic) you wouldn't provide a "theory" or "idea." But since you're interested in confusing life, let's make things a bit more interesting (confusing) with this quote of yours. Do you really think that we're the ones doing the thinking, thinking that we're the ones making our own decisions, because we like to believe we're in control? You sure it's not our own minds having us think that we are in control, making us like that feeling? What about this entire post of yours? Were you really the one that decided to write this? Why would your mind allow you (if you at all exist, of course) to write about something that could jeopardize its plans for you? Or is this all part of your mind's schemes, to give you the impression that you're on to something so that it can have less things to worry about? Perhaps my mind is having me write all of this out just to foil your mind's plans. Let's go to the extreme and say we don't exist, only our minds do. Would you say that your mind is you, therefore you exist? No, that would be contrary to this quote of yours. For it could be argued that we think, therefore we exist, but your statement doesn't allow us to think. It is impossible to perceive without a perceiver, but even so, in the scenario you provide for us, we don't perceive. But if we don't exist, then it follows from your statement that only our brains do. So "we" is "our brain." But does this form a paradox? And what if we assert that even "our" brains don't have free will since they would in turn be restricted to physical (chemical) processes? That "our" brain, in turn, does not have free will of its own, but rather it is the chemical processes that are causing it to function. So then what causes these to function or act "on their own"? Indeed, in a purely physical world, how can anything start moving on their own? It's really the other way around.

Just take their cookie information since they would already be logged into your site and modify the PHP shoutbox script to reflect their cookie information. AJAX isn't required for this, and would be better if not used for inserting their user name into the user name field.

For the time being, when you click to view the e-mail in Gmail, look for the label "spam" with the "x" next to it and click on the "x". This should allow mail from gamma.xisto.com to be sent into your inbox instead of the spam folder.

That's what happened to me with truefusion.com. Apparently, CatchyDomains took it and are asking an absurd price for it, but truefusion.org was available—so i took it. Though i'd rather have a .com address, i'll take .org before i lose the chance—they practically mean the same thing in their purpose, though i'd rather that my website not be perceived as an organization.

For PC gaming, personally, just take away Windows. For me, whenever i'm in Windows, it's so boring there that it actually makes me want to start playing games. Luckily i'm rarely in Windows; i can't stand not being productive for too long, so i jump over to Linux. But i guess generally it all depends on whether or not you can convince the person that they're being unproductive. Of course, it becomes slightly harder with contests that give away real money to the winners. Many people just lack self control, though.

I think that question can be answered when you ask, How does any sun-dried fruit taste like? Do grapes and raisins taste the same, though they're originally the same fruit? The cereals i eat that come with sun-dried (straw-)berries don't taste the same as the original berries. I think i had sun-dried tomatoes once before, though, when i ordered from Papa John's Pizza, but i can't remember if they were sun-dried (though a quick look at their menu may say so).

Interestingly, a friend of mine purchased the HAF 922, the smaller one, and he says the fans have the regular Phillips head screws. I haven't verified this, but the 922 does have things that the 932 doesn't and vice versa. The case came with an 8-pin extender, but i didn't need it. The motherboard connector, though a slightly tight fit, made it around the back of the case to the motherboard. According to the specs, the big fans are about 19dBA, the 140mm is about 17dBA. If it is really/absolutely quiet in your room/house, then you can hear the fans, but it's (very) bearable—not something that would keep a person from sleeping. But practically any amount of noise can cover all the fan noise. Also, concerning the fans' airflow, i did what one can call the "paper test," that is, putting a sheet of printing paper in front of the fans to see at what distance the fans pull or push air. The top fan didn't allow the paper to touch the case, keeping it suspended in air about an inch away from the case (i found this slightly interesting). The 140mm in the back pushes the paper a bit from about an inch away from the case. The front and side pull the paper in about an inch away from the case. It came with a lot of motherboard standoffs; there's enough for about 2 motherboards. The front panel cords (which includes the e-SATA connection) were really long, extending more than across the case. But i shoved the e-SATA cable behind the mobo tray, since i'm not going to be using it.

What browser are you testing this in, or which ones are contrary to what you have expected to see happen? It is quite possible that you may have specific browser settings concerning JavaScript. For example, many browsers prevent JavaScript from displaying text on the status bar, from resizing windows, et cetera. So, even if you tell the browser to do something, it does not mean it'll happen, that is, concerning JavaScript and window manipulation.

For this case the cable management is very good, but only if you have a power supply with long cords. My power supply had somewhat medium-sized cords (if there's any standard in sizes), and i couldn't get all the cords around through the back of the motherboard case, even though the images on their website show a PSU easily getting through all the holes. Concerning images, Newegg should have clear enough images of the inside of the case. [1] Yes, that's basically what that means. Interestingly enough, though, even though i can see the dust piling up on the honey-comb mesh where the fans blow air in, when i open the case, i don't see any dust on the motherboard, gfx card, tv tuner or the fans. [2] I guess, but i'm not sure if Cooler Master has been annoyed enough to where they've finally released dust filters for this case, so that is something to look into. The only fan i can see someone having trouble installing dust filters for is the fan on the front. I haven't messed around with the fan in the front, but the top and side fan required a 3mm hex key to unscrew.

Actually, the HAF 932 is cheaper than the Antec 1200, by around $25 (unless you compare it with the Antec 1200 750, then it's a bit of an overkill in price compared to the HAF 932, though i'm not sure why). I was actually deciding whether to go with the HAF 932 or the Antec 1200 before i bought the HAF 932. Here are the reasons why i went with the HAF 932 instead of the Antec 1200 after doing much research on both cases and viewing a lot of case reviews: More room for extra optical drives. Cheaper than the Antec 1200 with equal design quality. Bigger fans (i love big fans), therefore less noise from the fans and more air being pushed (or pulled). Side panel supports more than one fan. The only advantages i can think of that the Antec 1200 has over the HAF 932 is that it has dust filters for all of its intake fan spots, has a bigger tray on the top of the case, and provides controllers for its fans; and maybe adjustable HDD bays. Any other "advantages" would be aesthetic concerning the LED lights on the fans, which can be turned off, i think.

All of that in one go, eh? Concerning repetitive dreams, i've had dreams repeat on me before, sometimes months or years after having them, but i wouldn't say it came back because i was constantly thinking about the dream. But whenever they replay they're never 100% the same as the last one. It's like the old "script" was modified and the new "script" was put into "production." I can't say if i like the "original" better, but the remakes gave a different impression, mostly concerning their quality. The interesting part is that in the dream i somewhat knew that what i was experiencing was from a past dream, though in the dream that is not focused upon.

If i understand the PHP manual correctly, then PHP only obtains the cookie that matches the server's domain—whatever cookie that may be. I am uncertain, though, of any cookie restrictions a browser may have. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to accomplish, especially concerning that PHP users script, but i wouldn't expect you to find a cookie from the PHP users script from a script that already has a user system. Since you said you "logged in" and the cookie information you have showed doesn't really show anything i would have expected, due to ambiguity, i have no idea what to tell you.

To figure out which cookies you're looking for, type the following in a test page on your domain's server and look for the array key that matches the one you need: <?phpecho "<pre>";print_r($_COOKIE);echo "</pre>";?>Since the domain is provided by the script you link to in this topic, testing this out on a local server will most likely not work, since it would be a different domain (i.e. most likely localhost).