truefusion

I think they want something like this: .openpolitiks.comBut i don't understand why they require such complicated cookie information, even if they say it's because of cookie specifications, especially if they're using setcookie() to create cookies.

[1] While God is supposed to be inside of us all, that is unfortunately not the case. John explains how to be one with God in 1 John 4:13-16. But even if God was inside us all, it wouldn't make us God. Christianity's oneness with God is not the same as Gnosticism or Pantheism. [2] Strength is in numbers, yes. [3] I too believe one should take care of one's self before they are able to take care of others. However, i have contemplated on ways to avoid being (or at least appearing) selfish even when taking care of yourself in this fashion, which therefore differs slightly from the position you have expressed. But the best way to explain this is by first mentioning how i define selfishness (though i'm not 100% satisfied by this definition): I define selfishness as (consciously) taking all the benefits or taking most of the benefits when others can benefit too; due to that, by this definition it is impossible to appear selfish if you distribute evenly all benefits among those who are capable of benefitting also. For example, for something as simple as a piece of pie: if there are four people who are interested in the pie and you're one of them, taking 1/3 or greater of the pie would be selfish by my definition of selfishness; taking 1/4 would not be selfish. From this definition it could be argued that taking less than 1/4 and leaving the rest for the others is generous, but i would rather that they were willingly generous rather than (following from the example) taking less because they can't handle 1/4th of the pie. By being willingly generous it allows for the possibility of generousity becoming a habit. Unfortunately, this somewhat assumes that generousity itself will not lead to their own down fall, but i also believe in the following proverb: Proverbs 11:24. I should also mention that by "taking care of one's self" i do not necessarily mean to limit things financially or to health, for i include spiritually also. But to get back on ways to avoid selfishness while helping yourself: Though one should pick trustworthy people, one way to avoid being selfish while helping yourself is to seek the help from others. In this way you are giving others, those who want to help, a chance to help (especially if you can't help yourself), rather than blowing them off because of pride or whatever the reason. Another way to avoid being or appearing selfish is by obtaining a partner who is in the same position as yourself; in that way you grow together. If the two (though it may be a bigger group) are in too bad of a condition to help each other (though i would hope not), then they can revert to the first way i mentioned. These are the only ways i have right now; i don't have enough information to currently formulate more ways. [4] Differences within the religion is not really a major worry concerning loss of faith or a reduction in numbers, as those who are already believers tend to stick to the faith regardless of different interpretations. The main reason for loss of faith is generally due to weak foundations. Also, while in a church, it is generally assumed that the existence of God and the validity of the Bible is a given, therefore discussions on the existence of God and the validity of the Bible are considered unnecessary or not discussed often, so they use that time for other things. Of course and unfortunately, many times due to those assumptions, the chances of weak foundations become significant. Thankfully, there are apologetics out there, but many don't suffice or they don't reach the kind of standard i would like them to reach. That is, many of them don't really address the (really) tough issues, and for those that try to address them, many of them don't provide a satisfactory answer (those that do are generally hidden deep within the internet). That's one of the reasons why i started my Christian Debater's Handbook (though not the main reason). So, in this case, yes, foundations would be stronger (and perhaps less mockery from unbelievers) if people were properly taught how to argue for the case of God. But implementing the implied system is slightly tricky due to the interests of the people (though i am generally speaking about teens and younger here). [5] Many interpretations come from people taking a far too technical view of scripture; most from ambiguity from the text, though much of the ambiguity of the text is due to ignorance of the Jewish culture, how people thought back then, of the Hebrew, Greek and whatever other language Scripture is found in, and logic; from liberals; confusing literal with metaphoric and vice versa; et cetera. And these aren't necessarily mainstream. But i wouldn't say there are "many" interpretations as to make the amount appear like an actual, living exaggeration. Differing interpretations only become a problem when they replace, equal or surpass in status the core of Christianity, which is supposed to be the cross, the ressurection and redemption through Christ (though there is more). And when such a problem occurs, it can't really be left alone, therefore debates arise. But ambiguities and many interpretations can occur in any discussion or writing no matter what the topic and efforts the author took to avoid such things. [6] That's one of the reasons for differing interpretations. It can be argued that one of the reasons for Christianity's popularity (i'm talking about what is written in the Bible, not what people preach) is due to lack of change. But it can also be argued that people just didn't change properly with the times, but trying to figure out the proper or better way implies trial and error, in which case potential believers can be lost. [7] Within Christianity it is not wise to incorporate other faiths, as that would ruin the whole point to Christainity. While it may be wise to do what Paul did while he was in Athens (Acts 17:16-32), to use the similarities from other religions to argue for Christianity, therefore attaining people from other faiths, i would say that is as far as it can go for "incorporating" people of other faiths. [1] :angel: [2] See, the Wikipedia article is a direct and specific source of information, not a general, unclear source like, "go search for it yourself." However, i can't say that the Wikipedia article would suffice. For one, they show more drawings than fossils on that article—which have been known to not be an accurate representation, especially since a specific incident concerning a drawing by Ernst Haeckel. Secondly, from the images themselves, i get the impression that they are playing a mere guessing game. This is further supported by the introduction of the article, where it says that the article merely exhibits similarities to one another. [3] Mhmm [4] Sorry to break this to you (), you actually asserted a false dilemma. Even if it were the case that they died out, you wouldn't be able to prove it due to lack of evidence (fossils), therefore leaving open for the possibility of other explanations. Due to the fact that the only thing implying intermediate fossils between between one creature to the next is the presupposition of the theory of evolution, you cannot say as if it were absolute that these creatures merely "died out," since you can't show that they ever existed. You have to therefore accept the fact that there is no evidence of their existence. Of course, Creationists have for a long time been arguing that there are a lot of gaps in the fossil record, and they may forever argue that they want every step of the process rather than every 1, 20, 100 or what-have-you miles of the process before they accept it (even if it may be unreasonable on their side). [5] [6] Hah! I didn't really notice that opening. However, i wouldn't say it is closed enough to be in support of the theory of evolution.

[1] Because it leaves you with nothing to work from, therefore there is a higher chance of people doing nothing but waiting on others to do something about it. So it may actually be better to have a false or inaccurate position than no position at all. [2] While in the store analogy one person could be on one side of the store and the other on the other side, differing views can only follow from the store analogy if when both of them switch papers and move to the opposite of the store and can't find what each other wrote down. And that is the only time both can be right (i.e. allowing for the possibility of store rearrangement). However, the store analogy is too simple for something as complex as religion. [2.1] Due to the implications from each religion, that would be illogical. Hence why your store analogy allows for both of them being correct, because it is not as complex as religion. [3] From a cosmological standpoint, the universe only implies one God, therefore multiple gods is unnecessary and could be seen as special pleading. The word "God" is used only due to its definition. It does not have to be "God," but since it points out something specific which differentiates from "the unknown," the term "God," therefore, is used. "The unknown" is like saying, "I don't know"?it leaves you with nothing, therefore it cannot be used to explain something. [4] One could argue that since creation is in "alpha stages," therefore require modifications every now-and-then, that the creator wasn't smart enough to create a perfect being. However, that argument would be a false dilemma. But to add to that, why would a God want to create something perfect? If God is perfect, then it would follow that to create something perfect would be to create something exactly like God, not merely in God's image, but 100% God. I do not see why an intelligent being would want to create something as powerful as and equal to Himself. [5] It is logically impossible to make this claim while admitting ignorance. [6] Though i can't show that He did, the statement presupposes that God didn't intervene in any way. [6.2] Often times, the last resort is turning to God. Many believers don't turn to God enough and only do so when they see their life going down the drain. Sometimes they don't even do that. [7] Those are known as Charities in the name of Christ. But, while there may be corrupt people within the religion, you are forgetting that there are also atheists and other unbelievers trying to steer people away from the faith?the very thing that drove them to want to help others in the first place. [7.2] Whether or not you're serving God, no matter what you are always serving someone?even if it is just yourself. But you can't help others if you only serve yourself, and since the only way to serve God is to provide for others, serving God is therefore better than serving yourself. [8] As with number 5, it is logically impossible to plead ignorance and state the conclusion as absolute. Also, debates often fail because those debating (whether it be one or more persons) are ignorant of logic. Plus, if the conclusion of all debates were ignorance, science, courtrooms, et cetera, too, would be pointless. [9] It is easier to bring other religions together if we first prove that there is a God (though i believe God's existence has already been shown to be the more logical path). Indeed, for even if all the theistic religions got together and agreed all on one thing, it does not follow that atheists would in turn become theists. [1] But your responses would not have begged the question if you actually did point us to an article on biology that proves what you said, in detail. [2] But you never said you would only answer them if they related to the theory of evolution. In fact, this topic on "God did it" need not involve the theory of evolution. While the person who wrote the questionnaire was specifically trying to take down the theory of evolution through their questioning, it does not mean you do not have to answer the questions properly because they have nothing to do with the theory of evolution, especially since you said, "Let's answer, shall we?" [3] This also begs the question. But in reality, if you tell a person this and that are transitional fossils, you are clouding the person's judgment by asserting that they are transitional fossils. When a believer asks for transitional fossils, they generally are looking for something that it cannot be argued that these fossils are fully formed. If you show them something that is fully formed, they could argue that you are committing the fallacy of appeal to probability, since similarities do not prove necessarily that this one creature came from another. This is one of the reasons why the theory of evolution remains a theory. [4] Unless all sources say the exact same thing, it is better to point the reader in the direction of actual proof. Otherwise, they may find that what you told them to look for provided nothing to the discussion. [5] I know you were, it's the same thing electriic ink used against a common (though somewhat flawed) teleological argument concerning paintings. But since this is all based on probability, data could be lost in the process or the "ink" in the "book" (or the "book" itself) can die off, therefore, due to the fact there are more things that can go wrong than right, the chances of the "ink" becoming something different and better than its previous form are dropped dramatically. [6] Everything kind of animal does not require being the same for the creator to be intelligent, especially if the creator wanted variety. [6.2] But your example(s) didn't show why it doesn't make any sense. If anything, it shows that you expected them (or wanted them) to be a specific way, and when finding out that they weren't, you concluded "it doesn't make sense." [7] Whether implicit or explicit, one does not have to admit that they use the scientific method. In the end the scientific method is merely verifying your premises, evidence and conclusion and seeing if the conclusion remains the same (assuming you concluded things logically). [8] Right, similar to my Christian Debater's Handbook (though it could use some updating, which i'll do later).

Ooo, sounds interesting. Can i point things out, too? Ah, thanks. I should point out before i start pointing things out that, while i'm not a supporter of God of the gaps arguments, me pointing things out that are against your statements does not necessarily mean i agree with what you rebuked or that i believe that the questions against the theory of evolution (regardless of whether or not they are relevant to the theory) has a point, but rather to basically show that nothing was really dealt with. [1][2] Begs the question. [3] Even though i already know that the theory of evolution doesn't assert that we came from monkeys per se, you can clearly see that it starts begging the question at "Remember" and so on. [4] Wouldn't the opposite be true, therefore nullifying most of your answer to the 9th and 11th question from, apparently, Dr. Hovind and Creation Science Evangelism? [6] Asserts a false dilemma. In case you need more of an explanation on why your statements commit the fallacies i pointed out: For the ones i said it begs the question, basically doing research on begging the question should be enough. However, as you mentioned in the beginning, in order to debate this, you have to provide evidence, otherwise your statements are equal in weight as your opponents. For example, the following begs the question: "The theory of evolution has been tested and proven many times, therefore it has to be true"—which nullifies your answer to question 7 from Dr. Hovind and Creation Science Evangelism. For the false dilemma, you don't need evolutionary descent for a bat to have lighter bones. But to say more on number 6, while number 6 also requires evidence that bats have heavier bones than birds, since it is hypothetical and since a false dilemma is more apparent, i refrained from accusing number 6 of question begging. The word "science" can pretty much be replaced with "the study thereof." While "Creation Science" may include Theology, whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist, each side has a premise they rely on as a basis for their studies. [1][2][3] You do realize calling someone an idiot on some random, public forum that they're bound to know nothing about is pointless, right? :angel: Nevertheless, while their question(s) may seem irrelevant, i thought you said you would be answering his questions. [4] While i am uncertain on how "he didn't accept" gravity as an explanation, simply stating gravity as an explanation does not do away with God, for gravity can still be traced back to God. While it may be common for unbelievers to believe that a natural explanation does away with God, it is still fallacious to believe that. [6] Saying "God did it" does not answer the question, "How did He do it?" Therefore, while it is common for unbelievers to believe that merely having an answer to the question "why" does not provoke further research, it is fallacious to rely solely on that implication, therefore causing further research where inspired. But to add to what you said, you can't say one won't look at the evidence if no one has done any alternative research. Also, being a believer (though not limited to Christians) does not imply that we could not handle being restricted to nature. It just so happens that detachment from the flesh is a Biblical promise. But you don't have to believe in any religion to believe in spirits or to consider the possibility, otherwise you'd be able to claim that shows like Ghost Hunters is religious. Interestingly enough, though, even though you say look up "abiogenesis" as to suggest that there is an answer to his question there, your response is, nevertheless, "[we] don't know." [10] Even though your answer doesn't make any sense even under the eyes of the theory of evolution, you could have just said, "While it may not produce any Chinese books, it can certainly produce a better English book!" [11] How would that make the Creator an idiot? You seem to be addressing a different question here. The question was about similarities in design, not mutations over time. It could be argued that if things mutated over time, it could be the creator perfecting his creation, but the question was about similarities in design. By similarities in design we can argue that the design process was finalized and implemented, therefore further implementations would be unnecessary or at least not requiring the creator. It is quite possible that "the facts" were begging the question.

I was able to submit a support ticket. Try now to see if you are able to now. If you still can't submit one, try changing browsers. I've just tested the support ticket script with Opera 10 Beta and it worked for me.

That doesn't mean an internal 500 error can't occur. Messing around with .htaccess files can cause these kinds of errors. Unfortunately that is all i know about 500 errors, from experience, so i am unsure if anything else could have caused it. Retrace your steps before the error occurred or Google known causes.

You have your switches messed up. I can barely make sense out of it. The switches end before they were supposed to but the code kept going, assuming that they were never finished. You have to recheck the code blocks for each switch and fix them to end when they are supposed to. I think the confusion started when you started a switch within a switch.

If you want something designed to be lightweight that'll remain lightweight (due to its design goals) which supports syntax highlighting, auto-completion, and the languages you gave as an example, then try Geany. I use it for HTML, CSS, Python, JavaScript and PHP (and when looking at C and C++ code).

If you're going to be placing this code in an HTML page and your HTML pages can parse PHP, then you can use the include function of PHP. Another way is to use AJAX. The only downside to AJAX is that it requires the user to have JavaScript enabled on their browser. But with AJAX you can have that little part of the site update without leaving or refreshing the page. Server-side includes require refreshing or entering a page with it to update the content.

It's yours until it expires. Then you have to renew it if you still want to have it. Domain names normally expire after a year from the activation (creation) date.

I would blame the while statement: while($info = mysql_fetch_array( $check )){$_POST['pass'] = stripslashes($_POST['pass']);$info['password'] = stripslashes($info['password']);$_POST['pass'] = md5($_POST['pass']);}While statements loop until the expression evaluates to FALSE. In this case, the fact that you got the message following the while statement means that the while statement's expression evaluated to false. Therefore, since PHP doesn't care if there is no such index (key) in the array (hence no error), $info is bound to contain the boolean FALSE rather than the expected array. You can verify this by using var_dump() on the variable $info. Change the while statement into an if statement and try again.

E-mail attachments require messing around with headers, which i've never tried. If you want to use a script that has been tested, apparently complete, and allows use of other e-mail features, you can try looking at PHP Mailer. I've never used it before, but it should be able to do e-mail attachments, and it does embedded images.

From the code you provided, there is no line 91. The only error i see is that the last code block, the else statement, is cut off. I'm not sure if that was done on purpose to hide other code, but, visually, that is the only thing i see that can cause very undesirable results.

I managed to duplicate the error on my local server, but here's what the PHP manual says: I was going to suggest similar as a solution. It seems (if i understand this correctly) that the include statement has to receive the remote file unparsed, so instead of including the file, use something like SimpleXML or what is suggested in what i quoted.

What's supposed to be its normal temperature? How do you know that's not normal for your card? A graphics card overheating doesn't necessarily mean it's the graphics card's fault. It could be faulty drivers or something unrelated to the graphics itself. My graphics card is always above 55 Celsius, whether its doing small or expensive tasks—though, i admit, my card is slightly overclocked.

To me it looks like something that can be pulled off in no more than a day, though i would say it should actually take around a few hours. But that's assuming you have a simple template system going on (which it looks like you do).

Um, here's a screenshot of that location. It's missing quite a lot. Have a look at it yourself. Is the screenshot you took taken locally on your computer? Because it doesn't look the same.

Topic is resolved.Please PM any moderator to continue this discussion. Until then, this topic is closed.

The CSS doesn't provide me with enough information on the element it is modifying. However, after having a look at the forum's source code, it turns out we're messing with a table, which already has a predefined width, and, according to the source code i'm viewing as of this posting, has an image in it. So, i would suggest the following for the header class (assuming the image element remains and the width of the table is predefined in the HTML): .header {margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto;}This CSS won't work if there is no defined width for the element. I have also spotted an error, as of this posting, in your HTML: <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="744px" class="header"><td align="right" class="welcome">should be:<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="744px" class="header"><tr><td align="right" class="welcome">You'll have to verify things on your end before we can continue. EDIT: seems i was a bit late.

I saw this yesterday after coming across the following comment on another site: I have to agree with this person, though. I can't decide either. I found them both to be equally funny. Microsoft's (recent) marketing schemes are exaggerating or giving the impression of being desperate.

In the Xisto Readme there's a link to the topic Member Levels. While it may not list all member levels, it should help you understand the member hierarchy system.

I had voted null because the list had radio buttons instead of check boxes. I can understand the reasoning behind picking radio buttons instead check boxes, for how can you have two favorites? But what if someone doesn't necessarily have a favorite but at the same time favor more than one equally or that the advantages and disadvantages of each pretty much make them equal to each other? As for others, i would expect at least Gentoo, Linux Mint and maybe Mepis to be added and to specify more explicitly that "Ubuntu" also stands for its other flavors.

The year 2014 of, i think, April is when Microsoft will cut support for security updates for Windows XP. The one you're referring to is for system builders, like HP, Dell, et cetera. Meaning, Windows XP will legally be available on the market till 2011. Linux is mostly used in the Internet world, like web servers, et cetera. I wouldn't say software compatibility is the issue here, because these are companies—they tend to make their own software anyway. A company that depends on others will only fall down with the company they depend on. When a company decides to be dependent on a product that is not maintained themselves, they have to rely on those who have strong foundations. But even then, it is still risky. I believe the issue here is more on the market share of Windows. If it is the case of market share, then if it does change, it will happen very slowly. The major thing Linux has for gaining market share is if Microsoft pulls another Vista. People stick to a product because it meets their "needs." Businesses develop for a specific platform because there are more people using that platform. Businesses are less likely to build for platforms that have less people on it, and people are less likely to move to a new platform if the stuff they are attached to does not work (well) on this new platform. So a big dilemma occurs.

While not explicitly mentioning adjectives before the word "evolution" or not defining things further can cause confusion, whenever i use the term "evolution" that bears ambiguity in a topic or debate, i don't entirely append everything there is to consider concerning evolution in general. The reason i have for this is that not everything concerning the theory of evolution contradicts creationism, therefore i only assume for the term "evolution" the things that do. Things like cancer or virues, et cetera, i do not really consider, because these things exist harmoniously with creationism. But this is an old topic, i have better arguments now-a-days.

There is nothing in the TOS concerning myCENTs. The Credit System v3 has no definite time for when it calculates and converts the myCENTs to Xisto dollars. It can take from instantly to over 24 hours for it to reflect in your account—it depends on the server. This is how the system works; there is nothing unexpected occurring.