Search results

All Chik-fil-A's gay workers must be cool with the extra trade if just for their own job security.

Problem for consumers of Chick-fil-A or any other fast food chicken for that matter is, they never know if it was a piece of hen or cock they just put in their mouth.

It would seem FT, that the nation survives despite religion not because of it.

My apologies. I didn't realize you were still at phonetics stage and struggling too by the looks of it. So it's more to do with you can't than I can. Explains a lot.

Well, that's at least reassuring, coming from one of the dimmest bulbs in the groupthink, with the proclitity to be just that.

That's both funny and weird to see. Full-on Groupthink. Y'all know what that is right? So you've gotta be kidding. But you're not are you. Incredible.

Proverbs 1-4:27 Turn not to the right hand nor to the left: remove thy foot from evil. Blunt's instrument - Simplistic things, being one absurd statement or another made in the bible, are further rendered ridiculous by equal and opposite contradictions, also in the bible.

You mean the hypocrisy which knows no bounds of "bleeding heart liberals" like Romney, who as governor, advocated and signed off the first permanent state ban on assault weapons?

If it depends on the meaning of the word god then I suggest that's where the semantics start, not with the question of whether the supernatural can connect to science. It cannot. As any sort of explanation for the universe, the supernatural does not belong anywhere near science. The Greek...

No jcl. You don't start out making assumptions or call it magic, as magic has a specific meaning of supernatural. To be scientific, you start by making NO assumptions. You observe what is observable, test what is testable, then predict etc. and go from there, to build knowledge. It is not a...

"The supernatural as explanation for the universe, does not belong in science".......is a semantic argument!? :confused: That will need some explaining. Couldn't agree more. No you can't do that. You don't find scientific theory for so called miracles, or magic, voodoo, gods, whatever...

I know no such thing. False vacuums. Not multiverse, not string landscape. You want to call false vacua - multiverses, then you are in direct conflict with your own authority - Stephen Hawking. The string landscape is not "the multiverse". I asked you a long while back to explain what you are...

Jeez, I post one quote which directly contradicts the post posted a thousand times as an authority. Suddenly you get an impression it's all "quotes and counter quotes".:confused: Can you kindly advise what's not real about my argument, which is basically that a tuner/god/designer is...

If I were being overly generous I'd suggest you are forever trying to squeeze a tuner God out of the Hawking/Hartle paper because you don't understand it. But there's little not to understand in what Stephen Hawking says here. Stephen Hawking: "Because there is a law such as gravity...

There are gigantic understatements, and then there is that .

Zeus, God, what's the difference? Both a God, both supernatural. The one with a problem with scientists saying the universe appears fine tuned has always been you, not I. You can't seem to grasp how it is not a scientific statement. The scientific question is, why are the cosmological...

You're obviously confused in the same way jem is.

Susskind is right. God is an option, as is Zeus an option, just as Fairy Dust is an option. However, were any of those options capable of turning into possibilities, then all of them are possibilities, as much as any other supernatural concepts are. "Luck, megaverse/ multiverse, someday find...

The only response you have is not to answer, but rather just repeat the same thing over and over again like an old broken xerox machine. Exactly what a troll does.

Real argument has been made against that, by others also. The only response you have is not to answer, but rather just repeat the same thing over and over again like an old broken xerox machine. But it’s not quite the same. Recently you changed the word 'options' to 'possibilities'...