Search results

bluud: >fuck God ... but your answer is really silly too, why >the hell do you think God should do as you wish, >how is he obliged to prove to you that he exists by >ways that only you can accept? Here's what's silly -- you not reading what I wrote before responding. Me: >I see no...

rc: >It would be ridiculous to think we can or should >define under what terms a god should be revealing >himself or even how he should be conducting his >business. Strawman alert: There's nothing in my statement claiming that he "should" be revealing himself -- in fact, that's why...

Wael: Two questions: A: Can you state for a fact that you know what media I do and do not review? B: If the above answer is "yes", how do you know? Simple question, simple answers. JB

Uhhh -- not sure if you meant that as a statement of your opinion, but if you did I disagree with it. I see no reason why a god who wanted to be know couldn't present himself in such a way that his existance could be proven scientifically. IMO JB

rc: >It is impossible to prove or disprove God. Certainly understand how it is impossible to "disprove" god, but I don't get how proving him need be impossible. I can think of a myriad of ways that god could be "proven" to my satisfaction. JB

Wael: >It is you who is a liar and the dishonest Turok. You >lied about me ignoring your question(s). Otherwise >a confrontational guy like you will be more than happy >to embarrass me, a guy who you dislike, and prove >that I really did ignore these questions. To any reasonable...

Wael: >You have never surprised me. (from a few weeks ago) ****************************************** Wael: >Why??? Because they are from the same >school of thought as the one you came from. >the same school that went after the natives even >after you locked them in reserves. the...

Wael: >You love to throw generic insults like dishonest and >ignorant. They haven't been "generic", as I'll show below from previous posts, they've been quite specific. >You know why Turok? Because you are the lowest >form of a coward who does not want to come up to >the challenge...

Wael: >Turok. I do not expect you to like me. After all, >you were raised to think that it is all rosy and >nice on my land. Pretending you know what I was "raised to think" just makes you look more like a fool. I have done nothing but surprise you when it comes to my take on...

What's the big deal? I've deleted a lot of your lies. One does not need to be a moderator to delete the lies of others. Get over it. JB

Hans: >You are arbitrarily defining "real hunger" as only >that which can be physically manifested. You are >being disingenuous in refusing to recognize my >alternative, legitimate definition. Why am I being "disingenuous"? Because you say so?. You have presented no evidence as to...

hans: >Collins: hunger 1. a feeling of pain, emptiness, or >weakness induced by lack of food. 2) an appetite, >need, desire, or craving. >According to the above definitions hunger is capable >of being a subjective experience ( a feeling ) without >there necessarily being physical...

heidegger: >... however it's generated it remains a subjective >event that exists in the mind as an entity >independent of its causes. Sorry, but not true. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hunger (n) hunger, a physiological need for food; the consequence of food...

heidegger: >In your opening statement "You cannot tell the >difference whether you're really hungry...." >acknowledges the truth that there is such a state >as being really hungry. Yes. >You know that this is so from your own subjective >experience and don't arrive at this...

AAA: >The whole point is that he had a religious not >scientific basis for retracting the paper. Interesting opinion -- but from the posted material, nothing approaching fact. JB

You and I certainly agree that compared to the engines pulling the plane, the resistance of the wheels will be minimal. It's not actually zero, but you are probably just saying "effectively zero", and not "actually zero". JB

LOL There's a reason that circular actions are measured in *revolutions*, while linear actions are measured in *distance*. Hint: One actually moves you somewhere -- can you figure out which one? JB

Haroki: X + (conveyor belt speed*y) = (wheel speed * y) + (100,000 lb thrust - 40,000 lb aerodynamic drag) Me: What is "y" standing in for? Haroki: force/lbs of resistance, as provided by the rolling resistance of the tires, etc. There must be one value for "y" in any single...

I don't have his retraction letter before me, but at least in the article, there appears to be an interesting error... Mr. Ferrell said he had no way of knowing what motivated Dr. Jacobson, but said that if scientists “look like they are pro-creationist they can get into trouble.”...

In: (conveyor belt speed*y) What is "y" standing in for? JB