Lionheart_0

TV channels have contracts with companies. They have to show adds for certain things so many times a day. So just because of one day, they cant really do anything about it. Its virtual reality, we are all smart enough to know the difference. Mourn for the lives lost in the real wars today, not the ones lost in video games.

Both i.e. Final Fantasy.

Because men are stronger then women, as said earlier, so if a woman goes in and loses, its really her own fault for trying, and if she wins, it just proves her equality. But if a man trys out for a woman's leauge, and wins, it just proves nothing, because men are stronger then women (usually). So in reality, it is equality.

November the 11th is more for the first and second world war (for the first). This is because on the 11th month, on the 11th day, at the 11th hour, the cease fire was called. Unfortunately, i think the last soldier that was killed was a Canadian, and was killed like 5 minutes before the cease fire.

This thread is about November 11th, Rememberence day. On this day we remember the feats of the soldiers which helped maintain our freedom. Sure it wasn't as big of a thing for world war I, but for World war II, it was a bigger accomplishment. Had Germany, nor Japan stopped during the war, they actually had vast drawn out plans which would of led to the attack on America, and total global domination. So without the actions of these soldiers, you may not be here today. Lest we forget.

.... you knew what I meant. I was referring to equal rights and what not. Just because one gender is stronger means nothing.

Most of us men get angry and fight out of emotion right away. If you are gonna be sexist, get out. Everyone IS equal. No ifs or buts.

Definitely. Especially when they can't spell perfectly themselves. Especially if you have problems with their ideology. Anyway, I think it is annoying, very annoying. And that's the exact reason why I do it to Lionheart. I only do it to people I'm closer to and who know I still love them, though. Much more annoying than people correcting grammar, however, are the pedantic idiots who'd do what Matt has done on his post here. And there are dozens of them in here. I was so hopeing my name wouldn't come up on this topic... I really wanted to avoid it...

But little do you know, Vicktor was thinking like a scientist, not like you. It does not mater if something is supernatural or not, from a science prospective, if it cannot be proven, it is not real (or atleast if there is no logical theory that ties back what is known on the issue to what we already know about he world). Stop being thick headed and accept others views sometimes, m'kay? Does not mean you have to belive or agree with him, but you can atleast see where he is going with this. Your view is nonsensical as well because you are defining my view as mutually exclusive from scientists. Let me explain this to you Lionheart - even though I expected you to grasp this simple concept. I agree that for SCIENCE, you need physical facts and proof. I agree with that 100%! However, God is supernatural and is in a different realm of science. It has nothing to do with science AND it is not mutually exclusive. You can't prove God exists because it requires physical evidence and God is of the supernatural. The two fields are completely unrelated. Here's a good example: A chef is someone who studies in the culinary field. A mechanic studies how to work on cars. A mechanic could never ask a chef to give him the recipe on how to properly cook the steering wheel so the horn works - because the fields are different. However, just because you can't cook the steering wheel to make the horn works, it doesn't mean you can't use mechanical knowledge to make the horn work. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can't prove God exists because that requires proof the natural, and God is of the supernatural. It's not mutually exclusive though. Science discovers things of the natural world, while theology can discover things of the supernatural - together. Asking for "proof" is nonsensical - because it is in a completely unrelated field of study. BTW there is an edit button so you dont have to double post, thanks. And thank you for proving me right. There is not proof for god, ergo god doesnt exist because there is no proof. You say that the fields of study matter, but really, they don't. Just because God is supernatural, does not mean that when a Scientist (an athiest scientist for that matter. Wouldn't wan't you to over examin the situation :P ) is debating about the existance, that it means they cannot have any aurgument because god does not pertain to science. God is a part of religion, which is in turn viewed by diffrent people diffrently. If this is so, why can't scientist view god (as part of a religion which can be viewed diffrently by diffrent people) as non existant because the lack of proof, if it is their point of view on things? Are you saying that a scientist's view that god could in some way have something to do with science is wrong? I view the study of anthropology as a science. In this study, they study how humans work, interact, and do everything. As part of the science, it is possible to look into why humans belive and have religion, and because god is part of religion, the science can attempt to figure out why humans still belive in this deity even if there is no proof. This all shows that science and religion/god is still interlocked. Edit: and so there is no being confused, here you go: anÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçthroÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçpolÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçgyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã¡ /ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬â¢ÃÆÃâÃâænÃÆýÃâørÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¹Ã¢â¬Â pÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ‰â¢lÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢dÃÆàâââ‰â¢i/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-thruh-pol-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun 1. the science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind. 2. the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals. 3. the science of humans and their works. 4. Also called philosophical anthropology. the study of the nature and essence of humankind. Anthropology doesn't work because you are asking for physical evidence of a God. Physical evidence comes from the natural world, God is supernatural - physical evidence can't exist. Asking for physical evidence of something that isn't physical is nonsensical. BUT THAT EXACTLY IT. Since it does not exist physicly, it does not exist to scientists! The naturual world is all that exists, therefore meaning god does not exists!

But little do you know, Vicktor was thinking like a scientist, not like you. It does not mater if something is supernatural or not, from a science prospective, if it cannot be proven, it is not real (or atleast if there is no logical theory that ties back what is known on the issue to what we already know about he world). Stop being thick headed and accept others views sometimes, m'kay? Does not mean you have to belive or agree with him, but you can atleast see where he is going with this. Your view is nonsensical as well because you are defining my view as mutually exclusive from scientists. Let me explain this to you Lionheart - even though I expected you to grasp this simple concept. I agree that for SCIENCE, you need physical facts and proof. I agree with that 100%! However, God is supernatural and is in a different realm of science. It has nothing to do with science AND it is not mutually exclusive. You can't prove God exists because it requires physical evidence and God is of the supernatural. The two fields are completely unrelated. Here's a good example: A chef is someone who studies in the culinary field. A mechanic studies how to work on cars. A mechanic could never ask a chef to give him the recipe on how to properly cook the steering wheel so the horn works - because the fields are different. However, just because you can't cook the steering wheel to make the horn works, it doesn't mean you can't use mechanical knowledge to make the horn work. The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can't prove God exists because that requires proof the natural, and God is of the supernatural. It's not mutually exclusive though. Science discovers things of the natural world, while theology can discover things of the supernatural - together. Asking for "proof" is nonsensical - because it is in a completely unrelated field of study. BTW there is an edit button so you dont have to double post, thanks. And thank you for proving me right. There is not proof for god, ergo god doesnt exist because there is no proof. You say that the fields of study matter, but really, they don't. Just because God is supernatural, does not mean that when a Scientist (an athiest scientist for that matter. Wouldn't wan't you to over examin the situation :P ) is debating about the existance, that it means they cannot have any aurgument because god does not pertain to science. God is a part of religion, which is in turn viewed by diffrent people diffrently. If this is so, why can't scientist view god (as part of a religion which can be viewed diffrently by diffrent people) as non existant because the lack of proof, if it is their point of view on things? Are you saying that a scientist's view that god could in some way have something to do with science is wrong? I view the study of anthropology as a science. In this study, they study how humans work, interact, and do everything. As part of the science, it is possible to look into why humans belive and have religion, and because god is part of religion, the science can attempt to figure out why humans still belive in this deity even if there is no proof. This all shows that science and religion/god is still interlocked. Edit: and so there is no being confused, here you go: anÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçthroÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçpolÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâçgyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã¡ /ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬â¢ÃÆÃâÃâænÃÆýÃâørÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¹Ã¢â¬Â pÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ‰â¢lÃÆââ¬Â°Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢dÃÆàâââ‰â¢i/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-thruh-pol-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun 1. the science that deals with the origins, physical and cultural development, biological characteristics, and social customs and beliefs of humankind. 2. the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals. 3. the science of humans and their works. 4. Also called philosophical anthropology. the study of the nature and essence of humankind.

MIIIII ^^

But little do you know, Vicktor was thinking like a scientist, not like you. It does not mater if something is supernatural or not, from a science prospective, if it cannot be proven, it is not real (or atleast if there is no logical theory that ties back what is known on the issue to what we already know about he world). Stop being thick headed and accept others views sometimes, m'kay? Does not mean you have to belive or agree with him, but you can atleast see where he is going with this.

Exhibit A: Moi. I don't care what religion anyone is (mainly because I could care about religion period), everyone is a person, so thats all I care about. Same goes for race.

What if they do someone else wrong? They did somone else wrong, why should you care? If one were to dislike another for actions against another,it is pointless, and leeds to people who are disliked by large crowds for no apparent reason.

Damn, I didnt think there was a thread for this, so i spent all night waitiing around on DW for you. Should feel bad about yourself! But besides that, WOOT! HAPPY BIRTHDAY kAYLA. iF YOU DONT HAVE A FREAKIN GOOD BIRTHDAY, I'LL HUG YOU TO DEATH INSTEAD OF JUST HUGING YOU. [/caps]

Why do you think his spelling has improved so much lately? :P Only kind of people I seriously dislike are false friends. People who pretend to be there for you just because it is convenient for them. I've actually spelt better lately due to people on DW being on my case enough. Ive used FF2.0 twice for TIF. I've* Grammer was wrong, but was the spelling? :?

Why do you think his spelling has improved so much lately? :P Only kind of people I seriously dislike are false friends. People who pretend to be there for you just because it is convenient for them. I've actually spelt better lately due to people on DW being on my case enough. Ive used FF2.0 twice for TIF. (not including this post). To be on topic, there is no reason to dislike a person unless they do you wrong. Any other reason is bull.

#-o He stole my avy!

Reality is what the mind percieves. Therefore meaning everyones reality might be a little diffrent, although they are also based on the same principles. (i.e. Physics, laws).

Sweat idea as well! DDR is so awsome.

^He is basicly right. Unless you have alot of other money to spend on gifts for christmas, i suggest using that money on others. But if it is extra money, and you still can get gifts for others, i would suggest (everyone knows what im about to say): Any square enix game for the PS2. Best ones i can think of are Kingdom Hearts 1, Kingdom Hearts 2 (get one before two), Final Fantasy XII, Final Fantasy X, and if you have an old ps1 save card and can find it in a used game bin, Final Fantasy IX.

=D> I'm finding this very funny how all the people who are pro for stemcell research jumped on this topic, and have presented such good arguments, its not possible to argue back! Anyways, I'm for it. We need to know how to heal everyone of anything, and one way is through the regeneration of tissues.

I try to only see and do good. Although its hard sometimes, i think its necessary.There is too much negative thinking and actions in the world these days. Society needs people who are willing to be the "angels" (Not in a religous aspect, but like we are the good people).

Or that is "just happend" For no reason. which would mean anything is possible.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but not everything is possible. Also, as BlueLancer said, there is no such thing as infinity. And I doubt even in space there is, everything has to have a begining and end, even, and especially, time. I used to think like you. I always said there was no such thing as infinity because something like time you cant be shown a starting or an ending of time (of all time, not just ones time life.) But in reality, time is infinit. How could of there been a beginning if it had to begin. Define time? Time as we know it is just the measure of instances of passing us. If time was not constant, how was there a biginning? Assuming the big bang theory is true, how could of the two atoms (or what ever molecules they were) come together if there was not time before it? Nothing would happen, everything woudl just be there, but no instances could flow, meaning that the bang could never happen. For example. If i draw a few slides of the big bang. Lets say on one i have a picture of the biggining, then some leadding up to the meeting of the two particles, then more for what happens after. Now if time didnt start untill the particles came together, how could they come together. there is not time to move the two particles together. Which menas either time is a constant, or time started before then, but we will never know. This also leads me to say anything is possible. Just because we base our world on certain laws, dosent mean it isnt possible that those laws are diffrent elsewhere, or perhaps at another time :P BTW, Gravity is a scientific-theory. You can show me a object falling, and thats all i see. How can you prove gravity?