Search results

:D (Too bad we don't have a "bell" emoticon)

This answer exposes you as a fraud. Under certain circumstances, G=G+1 does hold. I'm not telling you when. If you want to know, take freshman calculus.

So you really haven't been to China. 80% of Chinese population are peasants who don't have indoor plumbing. They don't produce "raw sewage." They take crap in the fields where they grow their wheat or corn. Turns into fertilizer instantly. The remaining 20%, that's less than the total US...

You've never been to China. In the US, that's raw sewage need to be treated. In China, that's called "fertilizer" (and hog feed).

thefreedictionary.com: see 1 Pronunciation (s) v. saw (sô), seen (sn), see·ing, sees v.tr. 1. To perceive with the eye. 2. a. To apprehend as if with the eye. b. To detect by means analogous to use of the eye: an electronic surveillance camera that saw the activity in the embassy yard...

The US. Every which way you look at it...

I gave two links showing exactly who are pushing the nuclear option. Here they are again: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-12/p34.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1401209_pf.html And these links made very good points why nuclear energy is safe and clean. And what did you...

Jesus, you're thick. Answer the question. When (as in "under what circumstances") does G=G+1 hold?

Are you a practicing Buddhist? As I said before, you don't have to be a chicken to know that a chicken can't swim.

Your inability to see the meaning of the words is beyond belief. How does one butcher a message by copying and pasting? Here is an example: That was a nice cut&paste job, wasn't it? And fixed your grammar, too.

You were butchering Buddhism. It was easier to treat it as gibberish. But since you wanted to expose how ignorant you are... The "Liberation" is not one. There are at least three different types of "Liberation." First is the liberation of living beings. If you see someone preparing to...

Amazing the pretender doesn't know that the algebra of finite numbers shouldn't apply to God. Here is a question for you: when does the equality G+1=G hold?

If the right wing controlled radio stations can ban them, then the left wing controlled grammy can give them the awards. Banning them from the radio's was definitely not an economic decision, as their album was in the top 10 last year. They were hurt by the ban. It was clearly to punish them...

It appears designed to anyone who observes it. There is no debate there. The question is, does the appearance of design imply existence of design.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html?ex=1171429200&en=b3545c3a8d72b42e&ei=5070 "Cosmic Laws Like Speed of Light Might Be Changing, a Study Finds"

This is perhaps the correct understanding of science 200 years ago. But certainly not today. I didn't know that z10 was such a fossil.

I see. So your tactic is, that when you can't win one debate, you simply switch to another. Later on when no one is noticing, you switch back to the already debunked topic as if nothing had happened. Slick.

Alright. Since you're such a big fan of "cause and effect," what is the "cause" of the "design" without a designer? (Don't tell me it's "random ignorant chance." :D )

Alright. Let me be sure though. Do you want to debate whether design is real, or do you want to debate whether "design is real" is a scientific proposition?

This is intellectual dishonesty. The honest question to ask is "does a designer need to exist for design to occur?" And the answer to that question is an unequivocal "Yes."