truefusion

I do not believe that the reason for not continuing is because you lack time, as you are a hosted member and require to post to maintain your hosting. But if you were going to discontinue the discussion, then you did not need to tell me to prove anything. Telling me to prove something implies that you would return. Without God what is creationism? You may be able to present books that say the Bible is wrong, but that within itself doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong. [1]Usually? Regardless, science being able to prove something does not necessarily disprove the Bible altogether. [3]The burden of proof is still on you to prove that the Bible is just a mere book of metaphors. Redirecting a matter when the burden of proof is on you is known as a "red herring." [5]Define "respect." I only added to the explanation i once heard from a Christian scientist. But that would mean that if we fix up or repair our atmosphere, we could increase our lifespan on earth. [1]Correct, but that tends to be common of humans. [2]I have already provided much reasoning why God was the cause of all of this; you still need to disprove much of my reasoning. But you have to prove that God created atheists. Atheism is a decision made by people to become atheists. A baby lacking knowledge of something does not mean that they are an atheist, nor does it mean that what they lack knowledge of doesn't exist. [4]You said doctors save lives because of the DNA links found between two species. That implies that primates were used in the name of science in experiments so that human lives would be saved. But here you are talking about another matter. [1]Refer to my post found here: link. [2] I still don't fully understand your previous post concerning this. [1]Yes, provide them. [2]"Sinner" is just a summation. If morality is relative, then the world is worse off. [3]The burden of proof is still on you. [4]Concerning doctors, i know through experience. [5]You did say "him." "Them" is gender neutral.

Laws and rules are maintained, otherwise they'd be useless and fall apart. Therefore God is required to intervene even after setting things up. I already said that laws have a beginning and that they are established. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise, for it is not hard for me to prove that laws and rules are established. Only a conscious being can establish something, for it is through a desire or will that things get established. And if the rules existed since the dawn of time, then that is a perfect starting point for my arguement, which i have so used. I can prove that the Bible says that the earth existed before the six days, so there is something i can prove. And it is not impossible for God to cause things into existence within a very short period of time. He could have done it instantly, but apparently He did it in six days for the sake of the law of the Sabbath. But that entire section you quote from me was not intended to prove but rather to cause an open mind, as it provides an explanation as to why appearances can be deceiving. It is fully possible for the earth to be ~6,000 years old while appearing as old as whatever method for dating used says. But you have to prove that the earth being before the sun is not possible or "doesn't fit." [1]That goes for every book, so by your standard simply saying, "Science says so, so it must be true!" isn't enough of a justification. When you read something without verifying the data presented, you are running off of blind faith. This is very common in every day life, regardless of a person's stance in anything.[2]Heh. You implied that you were willing to believe in visionaries in your previous post, but that is not the case, it seems. [3]You have to prove that it is just a book of metaphors. Review my other post for some Biblical science proof (though there are more verses than that). [4]I already explained why a (the) Big Bang doesn't contradict scripture if it were true. But to add to it, there could have been multiple bangs in different sections of the universe. They don't have to necessarily be big ones, and they don't necessarily have to cause a large expansion across space. [5]Define "respect," for i can't see the following definition for it (for more than one reason—try not to assume things): "Accept." Although i already mentioned that it is uncertain just exactly how long the earth was left hanging there before the six days, consider the following: God creates the earth. The present carbon He gives it an extremely low concentration state—something beyond datable by radiocarbon dating. Immediately afterwards, He starts the six day creation. Due to chemical interactions, the carbon present becomes more concentrated. The previous form of the present carbon was what made it possible for humans to live as long as Adam and Eve, etc, did (and probably other factors included). Over time as more chemical interactions happened in the atomsphere, that decreased the lifespan of living organisms. [1]"Can," "'predicted'"—not absolute. We wouldn't need therapies or help if they eventually disappear. How a person dies is irrevelant to their salvation. All of a doctors' efforts are in vain if God chooses to prolong the tumor. Death is inevitable. If we could spare ourselves from death, we would not be human.[2]God has already provided before even asking. If it weren't for the matter that was caused into existence, the ability to think beyond that than any other living organism on the planet, we would not be able to do anything. Humans can't create anything, we merely manipulate our surroundings. And you're asserting that those that "made" the computer were atheists. [3]Good: you acknowledge that death is inevitable. [4]People were experimented on, used as "guinea pigs," in the name of science? Then, yeah, poor people, too. [5]You never defined "people" as "all those that don't believe in God," so it is you that is calling everyone who doesn't believe in God a sinner. My statement included those that believe in God also. This is in no way false testimony. [1]If religion was entirely subjective, then there would be nothing objective about it.[2]If religion is as subjective as you say it is, then it affects us all. In trying to understand the other part, as you asked, "Perhaps God intended it this way?" crossing things out doesn't help me much in understanding. But what i can get out of it is that you're assuming that there is no afterlife, therefore you state the assurance. [1]Actually, we're all asserting things. Some provide references and logic for their assertions, others do it afterwards or they don't do it at all. But in order for something to be greater than the other, it must be shown to be. If you say that science has proven something, but without providing any backing for your statement, then your statement is equal to mine if i provide no backing to my statements. But if you want to discontinue this discussion, then the choice is your's.[2]I already called myself a sinner in my previous post, for "people" includes me. It would only be hard to prove that a person is a sinner if they are lying. But that within itself proves that they are a sinner, so they would have to be truthful. It is wrong of people to say that they haven't done anything wrong if they did, as it only continues problems that could have been avoided. [3]You still have to prove that it is a metaphor. And i don't recall saying that one or more of my statements are a tautology. [4]I don't like going to a doctor; i haven't been to a doctor in years. I don't like medicine, due to their side effects, taste and because they can be hard to swallow. I don't like needles, for they hurt. I avoid the doctor as much as possible. However, this in no way means that i prevent others through force from going to a doctor. I merely suggest organic and natural alternatives for them or to perhaps go to a nutritionist instead. Of course, prayer helps too. [5]Your statement excludes female doctors. But i wouldn't do it to either anyway. But the statement would be more accurate if said, "You can only attempt to prolong a person's life." This should be motivation to do and be better. [hr=noshade] [/hr] [1:2]"Them" here implies the scientists. But i shall go with tumors instead.

You have just answered your own question. In case you don't understand what i mean: God set the rules, so how can it be done without God through a set of rules? Rules are established, they have a beginning. You would have to prove that rules can exist in the same way God can: without a beginning. It is not hard for me to prove that rules are established. The Bible mentions the earth before the six days, so the earth was there before anything created in the six days. It is uncertain how long the earth was hanging there before God made everything else. But even if we were to assume that God started creating things almost immediately after creating the earth, what science says about the age of the earth does not contradict anything and becomes irrelevant. For God could have just made the earth appear old. Many argue that God therefore has deceived the people. But that is false, since God has informed humanity how long it took Him to cause certain things into existence. So it is not that He deceived people, but rather that people just don't want to believe. So the fault is on the people, not God. [1]How is it not grounds for stating that?[2]What are prophets? [3]Yes, it is a book. Who doubted? [4]The Big Bang, if it really did occur, does not in any way contradict scripture. But the Vatican does not represent every Christian. The age of the earth given through carbon dating is irrelevant if God created the earth ~6,000 years ago. [1]Though not limited to a brain, many people have trusted and prayed to God to remove their tumor, and the tumors were later gone.[2]We already have the life we have, so why do we have to strive to be worthy of it? And, yeah, you have to figure things out by yourselves, for you choose to, even though it is so much easier to just ask God. [3]They work in vain, for the person eventually dies anyway. [4]Poor primates. [5]What's there to be proud or pleased about sinners? [1]No one can flame others with mere Biblical passages. But if religion is subjective, then why did you choose to post in this topic?[2]Religion affects us all too. Perhaps God intended it this way? But you can't assure something when you say "probably." [hr=noshade] [/hr] You can't say that both should not be taught then go on to say that people should be able to choose. For in order to be able to choose either or, both would have to be taught. Also, separation of church and state is irrelevant here. But the schools would be limiting the children if none teach either or. The children would have to look else where, if they even bear knowledge of it.

If there is no matter, then there is no mass. If there is no mass, then there is no energy. If there is no energy, then there are no tachyons. So the rest becomes irrelevant. Regardless, i'll mention one thing about the following: Assuming a spacetime bubble is pure nothingness (as i am ignorant of its meaning), then i would say you have to prove that a tachyon can interact with a spacetime bubble. And i would say, if a spacetime bubble is pure nothingness, then that within itself sounds self-contradicting due to the word "bubble." I think it fails. But perhaps you have more to say about it. So you don't believe in the Big Bang theory and any other theories that use it as a crutch then, eh? Note that you still use the word "believing" concerning things that you see to imply that the existence of what you saw concerns faith.

Many assertions without taking time to prove your statements. Even if i showed you a video, say, this one, you'd still doubt. So there's no point for you to be arguing against life after death. You still have to prove that it's not possible to die and come back to tell about it.

I use Gentoo with KDE 4.1. I don't dual boot, especially since i want this to be a Windows free environment, and everything i need all works on this operating system. I customized almost every aspect of my Linux set-up: from the kernel, to the framebuffer, etc. I learned a lot with this distribution.

If it's about biasism, then Creationism should be taught in science class, for by considering something else for it you are implying that the theory of evolution is greater than Creationism. And if the only reason you have for believing that Creationism isn't scientific theory is because children will get confused by the two theories placed in the same subject, that is to say that children aren't capable of deciding for themselves or making sense of the material. That is, you're underestimating the children. You'd be amazed just how smart kids can be even at early ages. And if it's about confusion, then don't teach either, for if both are going to be taught anyway in different subjects, what is the difference between them being taught in the same subject other than the biasism towards the theory of evolution? This, to me, does not follow. For one, creationism is systematic as it is capable of explaining many things. If what makes something systematic is merely the ability to explain the existence of fossils beneath the earth and why galaxies are moving away from each other, then many things in science are unsystematic. Therefore, it is obvious that your reasoning for why Creationism is not systematic is invalid. But consider this scenario for the motivation for Creationism: How did God do it? Or how did God design it?âÂÂthese very questions are enough to seek out and provide observable evidence that fits an overall pattern. A scientific theory is something that is testable. To say that Creationism is not testable in any way is to continue the ignorance that picking one greater than the other causes. But let's consider the galaxies moving away from each other, and how that can be tested: Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, etc... says that God stretches out the heavens (one of the things you said Creationism does not explain). How is this testable? Simply by checking to see if the heavens do indeed stretch or move away from each other. There are also many other things which are testable concerning Creationism, like the universe having a beginning (Genesis 1:1), entropy (Psalm 102:25-27), water cycle (Job 36:27-28), etc... It's all there, and should be taught within a science class. Due to this, it makes you think how did we today figure all these things out outside of the Bible? Was it via our technology? Have we been spoiled by technology that we've been using it as a crutch to the point where, though it helped us advance, it limits us to an apparent extent as well? As it is, Creationism shouldn't be considered "just another belief." P.S. There may be cases where God has filled the gaps because of humans, but so has naturalism (a.k.a. naturalism of the gaps); naturalism isn't the only explanation for things. Christians aren't the only ones that believe that God created the universe. That's to exclude the other Abrahamic religions. The word "Allah" is Arabic for the word "God"âÂÂeven Arabic Christians use the word "Allah." Regardless, the children also need to understand that many scientists are Christians themselves which do not adhere to the interpretations (since all evidence is interpreted) that promote the theory of evolution.

I don't like either of them, but if you must pick one, then i would suggest Java, only because i feel that it is less limiting and more beneficial.

The comic did not help me understand why you came to the conclusion that it is not reasonable. However, let me show you what did help me understand: The comic is at best mocking the suggestion to allow creationism to be taught along side the theory of evolution (as this topic suggests), though the comic in no way includes any reference to creationism, not even through implication, so the mocking is at a greater level. You have yet to prove that it is not a scientific theory but a belief.* However, your following statements contradict each other. Here, let's look at the parts that contradict each other: Was it intentional? For you are saying that you believe in creationism and that you hold dear to it, yet in the end you say you believe in the contrary. [hr=noshade] [/hr] * I can most likely argue similar: that it is a belief. But what would that prove? But anything that can be observed, tested and that fits a pattern is scientific theory, for the same things are said towards the theory of evolution.

If a WYSIWYG editor were to edit nothing but print and echo statements in a PHP script, it would have to consider many things to work around to get the desired effect, like functions, statements, variables, etc, in and surrounding the print and echo statement. I would say it's an annoyance that's not worth the time and effort in getting to perfect.I've never used a WYSIWYG to construct a template. The most i've used a WYSIWYG for was for tables that had a lot of merged cells, and that was over 5 years ago, when i was still learning HTML. Haven't used a WYSIWYG since. I find it much more beneficial for the web developer to type things out by hand.

[1]It is known as the word of God, which brings salvation.[2]I ask the same question, as in all the time i've been a believer i have never heard that 1 and 2 Corinthians would be the last standpoint before Christ's return. From all that i have read in the Bible, i don't recall doubt or questioning God's existence a sin. Nevertheless, due to the doubt and questioning, many have gone astray and in turn have committed sin. Your reasoning for preaching eternity should be a sin does not follow. You have yet to prove why it is bad to preach eternity. Never experiencing it to see if it is real is not a valid reason to mark something as bad, especially when this experience can only be experienced in the Hereafter. Not having seen something is in no way proof that it doesn't exist. I don't understand your reasoning for joy in heaven and counterbalance, etc. There is no Biblical proof, nor Qur'anic, that one will receive 40 virgins. Heaven isn't all about praising and worshipping God—though, it will happen often. Your reasoning assumes that praising and worshipping God is boring, but that is to include your point of view, too. There will only be everlasting joy in heaven, in everything we do; there will be no tears nor sadness. There will be nothing sexual about it. Peace will prevail forever. [1]There are two kinds of jealousies: Godly and worldly. When God says He is a jealous God, it is within the context of worshipping other gods. By worshipping other gods, people only harm themselves, seeking their own pleasures and desires, giving themselves false comfort, which has always caused them to sin. The wages of sin is death. By worshipping God you adhere to His ways and therefore obtain life. This is one of the reasons why God seeks to glorify His name. Although He need not compete with false gods, He does so anyway to save His people, for the people are foolish and appeal to their senses (mostly sight) and chase after mere objects which can do nothing for them. So He has to set Himself up for His own people for His people's sake. This is Godly jealousy, jealousy that isn't selfish. The second jealousy, worldly jealousy, is selfishness. They are jealous for their own sake, seeking to have for themselves regardless of other people's wants or concerns. The human spirit does not have the power or authority to cause another human spirit to move in the way you suggest, for all human spirits are equal. There requires a Spirit that is greater than the human spirit in order to move the person in that way.

Can you provide me with a list of the files located in your /boot directory in the DSL partition? I may then be able to help point out which is your kernel for DSL and which is the initramfs file for your DSL set-up. These two parts are very important. Without them you will not be able to boot into your DSL set-up.

In OpenSuSE, go to the directory where GRUB is installed, probably /boot/grub. In that directory open the file device.map to see where GRUB considers your current hardware set-up. Check what HD number is given to /dev/sda and remember it. If you do not see it in the device.map file, then you'll have to tell GRUB to regenerate the device.map file (see below). Open up /boot/grub/grub.conf for editing, as root. We'll just add three new lines for DSL (you can remove the comments): title DSL# replace "hd0,0" with the location of the SD card# View http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Quick_GRUB#Step_2:_The_GRUB_Prompt for more info concerning HD numbering# Also, replace "/boot/kernel" with the actual path to the DSL Kernelkernel (hd0,0)/boot/kernel root=/dev/sda1# replace "/boot/initrd" with the actual path to the DSL initramfs fileinitrd /boot/initrdSave, restart and see if it boots DSL. If it doesn't, then double check all paths. [hr=noshade] [/hr] If device.map does not show your SD card position, then do the following: In order to invoke GRUB, you have to be in a chroot environment: CONSOLE sudo chroot / You need to remove the current device.map file, but we'll back it up instead, just in case (assuming it's located at /boot/grub/device.map): CONSOLE mv /boot/grub/device.map /boot/grub/device.map.backup Now make sure your SD card is plugged in. Then we tell GRUB to regenerate the device map (assuming device.map was located at /boot/grub/device.map): CONSOLE grub --device-map=/boot/grub/device.map Then exit completely.

It's been done before, and they've been caught and punished accordingly. You'd be amazed at all the stunts i've seen people do just to earn a few extra credits. I could never understand the logic behind these acts, since it can only cost them their hosting, the very thing they were seeking when they entered Xisto.

If you have cracked PSCS3 Extended, then it won't make sense for you, since good never makes sense to those who seek to obtain pirated software. If you have paid $1000 for it, then continue using it. Otherwise use the GIMP; the GIMP is under rated; i have done much artwork in the GIMP that is comparable to Photoshop. If you made a program as powerful as Photoshop CS3 Extended and wanted to get paid for your work, you would not promote its pirated version. Why should it be different concerning others? So switch to a free, legal alternative, like the GIMP, if you have the pirated version of Photoshop, and delete Photoshop. There is no valid reason for pirating software. Your statement doesn't even imply that you have purchased Photoshop, therefore leaving open the possibility of you obtaining the pirated version of Photoshop. Photoshop CS3 Extended being $1000 increases the likelihood of you having the pirated version.

Ecclesiastes 5:3—disregard the second part of the verse. Though much worries is not always the case concerning dreams, dreams have been known to come with many worries. So perhaps you should be asking yourself what you have been thinking about the most recently. Doesn't matter if it was thought up yesterday or the day before or further back, even if it may seem like it doesn't add up—for dreams need not be entirely relative to what you were previously thinking about. I would make as far as 5 days back the limit. If nothing comes up, either way your guess is as good as mine.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ Seems like only two days was needed? But i don't adhere to the connotations of "global warming," and i still question global warming. The money will eventually be regained over time. It's an investment that pays off. With nuclear energy, you have to pay to clean up the waste. The more nuclear power plants, the more money wasted, the more waste to put away. We'll eventually run out of "safe" places to put the waste. Having more nuclear power plants will just speed up that process. There's a difference between knowing the evidence and presenting the evidence. You only spoke, assuming things true. If you chose to rely on others to provide for the evidence or hoped that the topic starter would do the same research you have done, why have others do the work for you and why would you expect the topic starter to do the same research you have done when they've done the opposite research and are convinced in the same way you're convinced by the evidence which you have done research on? Anyone can say, "Go get yourself educated." :fart: *coughs* Woo! ! ...Okay, enough joking around. Just like people can overcome a change in body temperature, so can the earth's surface. Just wait for it to decrease. The reason for surviving any coming ice age isn't necessarily the same for any previous ones, assuming it was indeed us, if any previous ice ages occurred. We have technology to help us today. But at the same time, technology may prove to be useless and be our demise for relying on it so much. Solar energy. http://www.opera.com/blogs/news/ Wikipedia isn't absolute. It may help, but it's not absolute. [hr=noshade] [/hr] For those making snide remarks in their posts, consider becoming more self controlled.

I'd just go with a DIV element that has a fixed position. That'll maintain its position regardless of scroll. Having the DIV shift after scrolling is a nice effect, but not necessary, especially if it collides with other JavaScript on the same page.

The following should get the results you desire: <?php$allowedlinks = array("google.com", "Xisto.com", "yahoo.com", "dmoz.org");function site_filter($matches){ global $allowedlinks; if (!preg_match("/(?:".implode("|", $allowedlinks).")\/?$/", $matches[1])){ return "Link not allowed."; } else { return $matches[0]; }}$variable='Some texts <a href="https://www.google.de/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=BwkjVKfAD8uH8QfckIGgCQ&gws_rd=ssl href="https://www.microsoft.com/de-de; ';$variable = preg_replace_callback("/<a href=[\"']([^<]+)[\"']>[^<]+<\/a>/", "site_filter", $variable);echo $variable;?>Would have been easier to work with if each anchor element was on its own line.

Please read the pinned topic to see your requirement(s) in Request Free Sig Or Banner section. Click here In the mean time please improve your post quality and continue to contribute quality posts.

I think BuffaloHELP once said that it has to be reset manually for users to re-apply. If you haven't contacted an admin, then do so.

In Ubuntu's repository, there should be an Nvidia X Server Settings package which you can install (just do a search for 'nvidia' and look for it). Install it and run it with root privileges (it's going to need root privileges to save the x.org configuration file). Under "X Server Display Configuration," you should be able to pick out your resolution. After configuring things the way you want, click on "Save to X Configuration File" found under the previously mentioned category. If that doesn't change your resolution, then you may need to restart your X server (save anything you're working on before doing so). If that still doesn't help, then you may have to edit the x.org configuration file manually.

If you have to wear make-up, then why are your decisions behind what make-up to use dependent on how your eyes will appear afterwards? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "color guard," but i doubt it's something where people's eyes are the center of attention. I don't believe that your facts concerning prosperity are accurate. Have you ever considered that maybe those with darker eyes chose other and probably better carreers instead? Perhaps the fact that you are interested in similar fields and because you think your eyes are dark is what causes you to believe more than you should.

Back when i was on the slow computer in my house—1.2ghz (Celeron), 512mbs of RAM, on-board Intel i810—KDE4 (at that time was 4.0) loaded up faster than KDE3. But KDE4's first release was geared toward testers and other developers, not for productive environments. The KDE4 devs said that KDE 4.1 would be the starting point toward productive environments (i've been running KDE 4.1 as my default DE for a few days now). You mention Pentium 3, but that doesn't supply us with the gigahertz, though it's probably more than the Celeron i was using back then. They weren't lying about KDE4's performance; not being able to run on your computer says nothing about performance. Trolltech provides dual licences for Qt3 and Qt4, it wasn't a back and forth thing. It hasn't been too long since the release of Qt 4.4 and i don't see them going in any direction that implies their end. KDE3 will still be around for a long while and i'd give it around 3 more years for KDE4 to catch up to KDE3. Kwin4 isn't a desktop manager, it's a window manager; Plasma is the desktop manager. I'ma assume that you tested KDE4 on another machine rather than the one you talked about here, probably your friend's computer, or else you'd be contradicting yourself when you say KDE4 can't run on your system. But i have no idea of the system specs of the system you tested KDE4 on—could be better, worse, or not much better than your system. If you can run KDE3, then you should be able to run KDE4, since it's less resource hungry.

The FolderView widget lags a lot for me when i scroll in it. It's probably due to the transparency effects, but i'm not sure.—found out the problem: bad Nvidia driver; switching to their latest beta driver fixed it and increased window management performance all around. I removed it from off the desktop though it is useful. It is now happily on my desktop once again. And it has always been easy to add widgets. But i should get into making my own.