Stu which church and which dogma said the world was flat

Ok, TM has flailed long enough in his feeble quest to defend his assertion and answer this one simple question:

>Where did this other "poster" say that gravity was
>"constant" and where did I come in to "defend it"?
>Please post the link.

Here are the facts per the record.

TM says I seem simple minded and...

>You said Gravity was constant.....now
>your saying its different

I challenge him to produce a statement that I never made and he cowardly backs away with the statement...

>Sorry, you didn't say it was a constant...
>another poster did but you came in to defend it

So, knowing that statement is a total fabrication I challenge it as well.

He again flails and produces no other poster saying gravity is "a constant".

Here is the record of the way the word "constant" was introduced to the thread...

TMs post:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=432770#post432770

My Post:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=432796#post432796

...where not only do I NOT say it's a constant, I say

>It's not expected to be constant, even on the
>surface of the earth.


Then TMs post;
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=433536#post433536

...where he again tries to attribute to me the very thing I never said.


So, TM introduces a concept, lies and attempts to blame the introduction on me, lies and attempts to blame the introduction on some "other poster".

The concept of gravity as a "constant" as introduced in this thread was your and yours alone TM. Your lies and fabrications are there on the record.

You must be in sad shape if you can't even quote the posts of a simple minded person correctly and then have to publicly lie on the record in an attempt to cover it up. I truly think your son could post better.

JB
 
ElCubano:
>It doesnt matter what tests you have performed
>nor does it matter how your views apply to "Faith"

Hi ElCubano. I think you are misunderstanding what is being debated by TM and myself. My only challenge to him was related to his following statement:

TM:
>I believe in the theory of gravity but if we put
>it through the same stringent tests as they put
>God through it won't pass.

That statement was hogwash when he made it and it is hogwash now.

You say "tests" and "faith" should be considered separately. That's fine with me...TM however brought them into the SAME consideration with his statement and assertion of the results of a direct comparison using the same criteria.

Again, not challenging his faith...just his statements.

JB
 
Quote from LongShot:

absence of evidence IS proof when the the claim is so grand and credible evidence is so lacking..

use a little common sense..

you're no child anymore..

you have intellectual responsibility now as an adult.


:-/
More...

but like websters dictionary says...'faith' needs no proof....its not about common sense or responsibility...I may in fact have more than you in those departments .... you argue as though people who believe or have faith are stupid....when in fact some are way more intelligent than you or I ...does that make sense to you??? im not here to argue with you over something you or i cant prove either way...im saying some have 'faith' and some don't.....why is this so hard to understand???.....
 
Quote from Turok:

ElCubano:
>It doesnt matter what tests you have performed
>nor does it matter how your views apply to "Faith"

Hi ElCubano. I think you are misunderstanding what is being debated by TM and myself. My only challenge to him was related to his following statement:

TM:
>I believe in the theory of gravity but if we put
>it through the same stringent tests as they put
>God through it won't pass.

That statement was hogwash when he made it and it is hogwash now.

You say "tests" and "faith" should be considered separately. That's fine with me...TM however brought them into the SAME consideration with his statement and assertion of the results of a direct comparison using the same criteria.

Again, not challenging his faith...just his statements.

JB
More...

sorry my bad... I dont really read everything like i should before replying...its a bad habit or my laziness i guess...
 
>you argue as though people who believe or
>have faith are stupid.

I happen to agree with you here Cubano. I don't find faith to be stupid and I have plenty.

I find blind faith to be misled and damaging.

JB
 
TM:
>You started the insults not me....

My "insults" are there in the record for all to see as are all your lies and fabrications.

I'm quite happy with the record thank you.

Put your son on, at least he's honest.

JB
 
Quote from ElCubano:

but like websters dictionary says...'faith' needs no proof....its not about common sense or responsibility...I may in fact have more than you in those departments .... you argue as though people who believe or have faith are stupid....when in fact some are way more intelligent than you or I ...does that make sense to you??? im not here to argue with you over something you or i cant prove either way...im saying some have 'faith' and some don't.....why is this so hard to understand???.....
More...

blind faith IS stupid. hard to understand why you wish to engage in stupidity. faith is no path to knowledge. to discovery. on the contrary faith is a prescription for dogma, a declaration that things are not to be thot about further.

you had faith in santee claus as a child, did objective reality bow to your wishes then?? did you faith lead to discovery? to truth??

a resounding NO.

your faith and a buck & half will buy you a cup of coffee.

"FAITH" is for fools and young children.

:-/
 
OK TM, You accused me of avoiding your question and I promised myself I would get back to your question as soon as I exposed you for the lying fraud you are. Now that that is done...

For the life of me my simple mind can't find a single question in your post:

TM:
>You are missing my point....Im asking simple questions
>because you seem like a simple minded person.....apply
>the same standards and burden of proof to both gravity
>and god....You said Gravity was constant.....now your saying
>its different...The gravity force on earth is different then the
>force on the moon, jupiter, the sun, the black hole that
>ripped apart a star yesterday.....Now as a believer in God,
>if I say Jesus was proof of God and attested to him and
>preformed miracles and died on the cross and was
>resurrected from the dead and ascended to heaven and
>countless people witnessed these events......you will most
>likely not accept that as proof because you did not see it
>yourself nor was there a picture...

Personally, I only find statements in there. If you will point out the question in there that I am avoiding I'll happily take the time to answer it now.

JB
 
Quote from LongShot:

blind faith IS stupid. hard to understand why you wish to engage in stupidity. faith is no path to knowledge. to discovery. on the contrary faith is a prescription for dogma, a declaration that things are not to be thot about further.

you had faith in santee claus as a child, did objective reality bow to your wishes then?? did you faith lead to discovery? to truth??

a resounding NO.

your faith and a buck & half will buy you a cup of coffee.

:-/
More...

no santa cluas...cmon...who brought me all those gifts this year :(

if this is what 'faith' represents to you ..then now we know why you have none...but this may not be what it represents to me ( thats just how life is ) ..... so you telling me that its stupid doesnt make sense....

your perception of love or lack therof may be different as mine...surely you dont love like i do or vice versa..you may in fact not belive in love....can science prove that i love my wife?? can they disect me, put me under the scope and find where this love is??? peace amigo...ill leave this alone....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top