If you could choose where you were to live the rest of your life (with no options of leaving) where on the world would that be?
We haven't seen any new additions to the list in a while, so get on that!
It isn't an argument about semantics, as to what he posted. Read it again. He posted it out without being as long winded as I am in breaking it down. Some of the man's points were valid and others are skewed and twisted to fit his meanings. That is the whole problem. He looks at it from saying 'God exists' and does not look at it from 'How does this work'. He on purpose words things the way he does to play with it and report to people his way what it means. That is lying. If he can't even get the theories right in the first place, he cannot debate what is wrong with them. Because theories in science are attempted to be disproved much more often, and some stand the test very well, think on that a bit. When a theory is disproved, it is removed and new examinations and former studies are reopened and investigated. This is what religion cannot do and why Creationists should not have Christian Science near anything related to Science at all. It should be called Christian Rubbish. I went to a seminar where some Creationist Scientist tried to say that earth is the only place that holds water. This is bull. There are worlds out there with evidence of water, and there are moons and worlds with water on them. It would really help if people would stop spreading lies to support their beliefs. Science is not about breaking beliefs. It is about understanding the marvelous place we dwell in.
That really sucks. Of course, they were probably laid off any way because they were not going to be affording the Christmas bonus so it makes sense why they were let go before the holidays was done. It is bad form though by the business but it's not the only one that does that and cheats people out of things. =:/ However, maybe now until they can find jobs they can suck off some unemployment which also hurts the company. Cheap revenge but at least it might let some of these people make it through the holidays and let them have a couple few months to find something else.
I could swear there was a thread devoted to this debate already somewhere here. However, I think the age should be reduced to 18. Those who say it saves lives, I am not seeing it. As a teenager, I could and did occasionally go out with friends who were older and had alcohol any way. I grew out of the big deal of having alcohol when I was 21, which I then was inebriated on my birthday but eh, after that it was much more just a casual social thing and now I don't drink so much as I have a lot of studies and things I have to do, and I'm not really dependent on it. Using myself as an example probably isn't the best thing since there are people I know who still get smashed etc after 21 and in reality I'd say some people I know shouldn't be drinking at 45. However, I guess I'm under the thought that if you are 18 you have the right to vote, which makes you an adult. You also have the right to become a soldier and die for your country, which makes you an adult. Therefore, I think 18 is sufficient since I really cannot say anyone I know that actually does not drink at least at home when 18 years old on up. Sometimes I think it's more deadly to have the age at 21 because then people are in secrecy doing what they would do more sensibly if not held from it. I do realize some people are idiots with alcohol but I've seen that a lot from people ages 15 to 30 some.
Sure, but that just emphasizes my point here. Bush was raised as a 'good ol boy' in the south and when his tail feathers are ruffled, he's agitated and does stupid things. He also can't speak worth a damn, but we'll leave that aside. It's not a matter that people 'won't do what I've just said' but rather some people do that and others still choose to live in the past and accept parental biases as their own. There are many students that try to hang out with each other and sometimes that is as much caused by diversity and intrigue as other people use diversity as a reason to fight. Some people are just darned interesting to get to know. It takes effort and I expect there will always be some form of violence in school as well as outside of it, but if each person works at it and we pass down that diversity is a good thing instead of a bad one, things can at least be more appreciated by some of us and those that want to be violent, unless they are out for extreme absolute violence, we can do what you have to learn in life after school to do any way, which is ignore idiots. That is really the lesson school helps teach us because sometimes school can seem more a 'social' grounds than just an educational one. We meet all sorts of people in school, but it is preparation for life after which can be more complicated in some ways, but because of dealing with jerks in school, we can have an easier time generally with adults that want to be aggressive, passive aggressive or what not. Many of the more 'aggressive' people don't do so successful at life because there's generally only so far you can go on physical beating up on someone and at the same time having little talent in anything else. School is not life. It's a stepping stone to being an adult and so those 'successful' bullies usually amount to very little after school because they never grow up and realize being a thug doesn't always get you money. If that's possibly one motivational thing for others to hold onto during school, realize that and pass it on to your kids etc. Having goals, working up talents, and learning to blow most violent people off will get you farther than those who just sit around and want to beat others down.
I agree. The game with Riku as the Keyblade wielder and not having turned to Darkness would have had to be more ...right words here...epic and dramatic? What I mean by that is that Sora did, as someone else said, wander and sometimes you could almost forget what his mission was because he sidetracked so much. With Riku having not turned to Darkness, he'd have done what was necessary but I doubt you'd ever actually lose his sense of duty and what he was out to do as he does not just follow his heart and let it lead him wherever. He's more a logical thinker. Also, I think the story may have been more grim and Disney would have had a hard time covering up the very dark ambiance that loomed in the background. There's a very deep dark story back behind all the cute smiles, antics etc of the Disney people and Riku not turning to Darkness probably would have revealed it more and made the game a higher rating (as in not suitable for under Teens).
First off, that link is a lame thing and he has it wrong. Some of what he wrote is absolute dribble, though fancied up to look legitimate. Also, those who said it was a scam are correct. In simple, you can -never- argue logic with someone who is of absolute faith. It cannot win ever! If Christian zealots were to actually study the theories before them instead of taking the word of some stupid idiot that does not know them himself, well, we might get somewhere in this debate. I find it disturbing that even the Creationist supporters here do not know what the Big Bang Theory truly is, and yet many of us who support Evolution can take quotes from the Bible and understand them perfectly fine. Creationism scientists lie. Until someone actually looks at the Theories and doesn't just read a one-sided view, there is no way to talk with these people at all. It's like they are afraid to view the truth of what is 'really' written in theories of science, but they are so candidly motivated to pass scientists a Bible. Then we read it and go 'wtf'. At least scientists actually -read- it and study it. I have yet to see a proper study done by a Creationist and I doubt I will ever see it done. I can better debate Intelligent Design versus Evolution because both come to paths of agreement and some realism, even if 'faith' is tacked on the end for ID. Logic is rationalizing out, studying, ****yzing and critically examining and thinking about things. It is not perfect but with the minds of many people doing so and tangible evidence, things do happen. Science is diverse though and so there are more than one theory on nearly any topic, because there are different ways with evidence to look at something. It's how Objective versus how Subjective we will be when examining things before our eyes. Objective is taking in the information and Subjective is how we perceive it and ideas that formulate around them. Science does NOT answer all questions. As a scientist, one of the little things you do in your life is understand that you will not have all the answers to every single question and some must be left "open-ended" to be researched later or by other people in the future. Science does not go out of its way to say God doesn't exist except to point out to Christians that it WILL not exist in a "Science" research because it is something that cannot possibly be studied until we reach that point. We take -real- things, look at them. Science moves around 'Faith' because Faith does not study anything. It sees what it is told to see and what it puts in its heart to believe. Science does not, despite every zealot Christian's fear, go out of its way to say God doesn't exist and the only reason it has a problem with religion is because of issues with dating, discoveries that contradict the books in events, and we study farther than a few doctrines can ever reach. Christian Science is a farce and should be eliminated from the realm of science altogether. It's like saying Scientology is science and it is clearly not. You cannot go into science with the point of proving something exists that you already believe in and learning things of science incorrectly to form views and solidify your faith. If the material is corrupted from the beginning, ALL results will therefore be corrupted and all this is in the end is a 'reaffirming' of someone's personal faith by skewing evidence and lying. You don't need that to believe in a religion, I would hope, but that IS what Christian Science is about. Science is studying that which is around us and using the 5 senses. It is critical views of what is there to be noticed and what does it mean, its function, its purpose and how can it be used, altered etc. It is not going to answer solidly about God because it is something someone either believes in or does not. Atheists disbelieve in God. So, many atheists are scientists. Not all are. So, some Christians, Jews, Islamic followers are Scientists. Not all support Creationism or even support Christian Science. I know several Christians that support the Theory of Evolution and other things that 'contradict' the Bible. I work with them in archeology and learn from some of them. The studies of science are meant to come from as -neutral- of a mind as you can be and to put personal beliefs and your own 'theories' to the side line so you can investigate things with an open mind: Not a closed one which is what Christian Science does. Science itself will not go out of its way to disprove OR prove God because quite simply we do not have the answers yet to do so. However, we can study matter, atoms, water, molecules, genetics, the galaxies, black holes, wormholes, entanglement, quantum physics, biology, botany etc. No text book that kids ever read says "There is no God". It will not happen regardless of what some scientists believe because that is a personal opinion and there is no evidence. It is also a personal opinion that God exists. Just because something marvelous exists and we study it and go 'wow' doesn't mean a -true- scientist is going to just say that "God did it" because the answer to that is unknown and to say so corrupts the work done by many people to maintain a neutral point of saying 'this is how it works in the present time and this is how it worked formerly'. ANYONE can say -anything- they find was created by God and will make some reason for it to have been possible. I can also at the same time say the Pink Puffy Jellyfish made the Milky Way Galaxy and is now sending our galaxy on a path with meeting the Andromeda Galaxy. I also can have as much 'evidence' as what extreme Christians do when they say God did it. If I went to some meeting on the Theory of Evolution and said "The Pink Puffy Jellyfish" is responsible for all the miraculous universe and our existences, I'd be laughed out of there because I have made it a personal belief and no one else is going to believe that, even if I convince some colleagues and start a "cult". If I went to a Christian Science get together and did the same thing, I would be called blasphemous, but what makes my Pink Puffy Jellyfish any less real than God is when saying there is a Divine Creator? I too can write a book and say I was divinely inspired. All cults/religions start out that way. This is WHY exactly that the Bible can be studied for some Historic quality but other than that, it is not so accurate for much else. The only evidence of God is that there are a few books out there and a mass culture of people that 'believe' in it. This is -not- proof. The Christians of the past made sure to wipe out mythologies of Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Norse and Celtic ideals (and more) and to absorb some of their holidays and designs even to make more people believe but what makes God anymore real than Thor? If Thor is now just reduced to being of the status of a mythology, why should we treat God any different? Just because people 'believe' it does not make it true. Someday Science may have the ability to prove whether God exists, or whether Thor exists or if either ever truly existed. However, it is simply not to that point yet and as there is very little evidence to support things either way, we are caught at an impasse and most scientists will not even bother with that and instead focus on what is -real- and there to be studied. Evolution has tangible evidence you can hold in your hand and therefore it is examined and studies continue. The point is to not say whether it was created by God or not, but to say THERE it is and it exists! Someday this will be understood because this war between belief and logic has gone on for hundreds of years and killed many great people who dared to think outside of the bun. P.S. Thank you Mirai for doing what I debated on doing and taking apart that Hovind article. I didn't want this post to be anymore of a novel than it already is.
Oh, you mean during the actual battle. I'd just assume that he ran off and was monitoring the fight and secretly made his way over to the door while Sora was fighting the Heartless. It's just a game thing to 'ignore the world around' while you face the beings you are in combat with, so we didn't get to see what Pete was up to. He obviously didn't leave the whole area or else he wouldn't have gone from the side of the tree line to the door, even if we didn't actually see it.
I think my post was somewhat misread. Let me fix it here. =:) I meant to say that there's a good chance he had at least met and conversed with Olette, Hayner and Pence possibly in the -real- Twilight Town when he appeared there. How close they were as friends is debatable so I would think we might see what happened in 358/2 Days more. The Organization did pick up Roxas there and also they went back repeatedly in 358/2 Days because that's the setting where they go to fight Heartless. The evidence points to this because when the real 3 meet Sora they ask him if they had met him before because he looked somewhat familiar to them. So, Roxas may have met them before and spoke with them. However, all of the reactions that happened between Roxas in KH2 and the 3 was done in the fake Twilight Town, and possibly DiZ made the design there that the 3 were the best of friends with him and Namine constructed his temporary memory to show this sort of thing. How close the 4 of them were in reality remains to be seen but it is probable they at least had some conversation with one another and when Namine adjusted his memories, she made them there in the fake world to keep up the ruse and also have something familiar to him so that he would go along with it better. Anyone in the digital version (fake Twilight Town) had originated in design from the real Twilight Town, and since the Org had gone there and Roxas and Axel even spent some quality time eating ice cream etc, he may have possibly encountered and chatted with the 3 real people at one time or another, but possibly they were made more 'real' of friends in KH2 with the digitized simulation than they were in reality.
Well, what DiZ did with Twilight Town, his fabricated version, was remake the town along with fake people of original people there in the real one. (boy that sentence was a doozy). I do think Nomura said something about Roxas having met Pence, Olette and Hayner in the real Twilight Town, since that's where he showed up, and it is also obvious that Axel and Roxas spent time in the real Twilight Town so perhaps it is sometime in 358/2 Days he at least saw them and why all 3 say they sort of think Sora looks familiar to them but they can't place why. I don't know if they ever really talked to each other though in the real Twilight Town or if Roxas just watched them.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1098327/ Seems it is really happening since it's also up on IMDB now. I do hope it's good too because it has a potential to be if done right.
That poll on IMDB is not so accurate considering not that many people have voted on "Postal" compared to Titanic. There are thousands of people that voted on Titanic and only hundreds that voted on Postal. Also the mean and average on Titanic is higher which means even though some 'scores' may be a bit higher on "Postal", over all it is not doing better than Titanic did in the viewers' minds. I can't say I wanted to see Titanic, but for a tear jerker it was good, though I steer away from those sort of flicks most often because I get bored. Postal, however, was sucky, as I knew it would be.
This show is a good one. I laughed at first hearing the Grim Reaper talking with a Jamaican accent! It's pretty funny.
I doubt that. There have been problems with Halo 3 in some areas, as I posted articles to it. Still though, the guy shouldn't be suing for anything other than his money back as MS did say they'd replace the discs.
Root beer and Pepsi is mostly what I drink of carbonated drinks. Also I have an addiction every now and then for Reed's ginger ale because it's so strong and wakes me up.
Hmm, either some chocolate or something sour...or a sweet thing that turns sour is good stuff. I also like cinnamon stuff.
I think it was pretty easy but doing the Jiminy Journal stuff was a bit harder. However, once I figured that out, it was simple too. It was enjoyable though so I didn't mind it being easy. It was a matter of focus that wins it.
Here we go again! 14, 9, 3, 27, 8, 16
Hot cocoa! Especially right now because it's snowing and cold out. Though I do love mocha coffee too and chilled mocha coffee as well. I'm not a big fan of chocolate bars as much though.
