Search results

So in other words, your "opportunity cost" presentation was all just BS. JB

And to complete it, there are many, many hills in this world where people are saying 'there is gold below". Why aren't you at each and every one of them? "Quite an opportunity cost in your book". JB

V00: >If you are standing on a mountain and someone >says there is gold below it, an atheist would argue >that there is not because they do not see it. V00, you are soooo full of BS. An "athiest" would say "show me the gold, or show me the geological surveys that show likelihood of...

V00: >If I was to catch someone pretending to >be God, then I would question my belief >in the existence of one. LOL -- well, that's not hard to find. Any number of people over the last years have believed or at least pretended to be god. JB

TraderZones = Rcanfiel JB

V00: >Amen. Me: That's really interesting. Anything to support it other than your wandering mind? JB

rcn: >LOL... O.K. Maybe I should have said that "it is >obvious in my opinion." Ok, quite fair enough. I have no problem with opinion. I would be interested to know however, what makes it obvious to you that there is malicious *intent* in the theory of evolution -- intent to...

LOL -- the only thing "obvious" is that you can't follow the logic of what you wrote. Your above statement is correct .. "no God, no judge.", but your previous assertion was clearly based on *intent*, not just result. You didn't say "the invention of evolution eliminated the judge". You...

I don't suppose it would do any good to ask you to provide support your assertion. Naahhh -- never mind. JB

Voo: >The only choice from a logic argument is agnosticism. A: I AM an agnostic, but your logic is beyond suspect (see "B") B: Since you can't grasp the elementary logic of "you can't prove a negative", you are hardly the one to be defining logical argument choices. LOL JB

>BTW, your oxygen analogy works against you. >Oxygen's existence can be tested. And it looks like >8 protons, 8 neutrons, and 8 electrons. Bingo. >Using the right instrument (an STM) you can see >what it looks like and how it is distinctive from >other elements. Or just pour it...

MT: >You quote me a NY newspaper......, Yes I did, -- an article which quotes the show to which you referred. >Turok; thats not the exact evidence i gave you. You *didn't* give me any evidence -- you simply referred me to a History Channel show -- THE SAME SHOW THE ARTICLE...

OMG Murray, you are such a gullible dork. http://www.nypost.com/seven/11092007/tv/did_history_channel_find_big_foot__713410.htm Even the group that did the 'research' (and I do use that term loosely) doesn't claim to have determined bigfoot's existence. They say (and it's their quote)...

MurrayT: >Turok ; >Actually an excellent comparison, because >there has been scientific DNA evidence of big foot, ROFLAO!! OMG! Stop it MT. LOL. GASP! I had no idea that the big boy actually existed. JB

V00: >Faith is no different from trust. Both require >belief without evidence. If you trust *or* have faith without evidence, you'll be in a world of hurt about 99.9% of the time -- only luck can save you. JB

V00: >So do you expect me to believe anothers >experience about seeing oxygen ? No, get your own bucket. Next. JB

1000: >WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T GET!!!!!!!!!! >!!!!! JESUS (I'll keep repeating it until you deal with it) I don't get why you assert the following: "when using explosives for demolision, there is a simultaneous setting off of all explosives." ...when video evidence clearly shows...

Rat: >i've read theories on how it could have been done.. Me: >How do the theories you've read address the key >items in this post? >http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...ote#post1874921 Rat's response (it total): http://www.ae911truth.org/ OK Rat, I've spent a bit of time...

1000: >WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DON'T GET. Ok, as simply as I can put it -- here's what I don't get. I don't get why you assert the following: "when using explosives for demolision, there is a simultaneous setting off of all explosives." ...when video evidence clearly shows you're...

1000: >1. How in the world do you call the implosions >of the Towers an explosives demo job? That's >my question. Before you look any more like a moron, do a quick search of my posts -- the answers are there in spades. In short : I don't believe the "implosions of the Towers" were...