1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus Christ Was Not Crucified
- Thread starter Cliffy
- Start date
a couple
ummmm...ok...... multiple accounts are not allowed, or so I thought. Also, if he/she/it has been banned under one of those accounts then he/she/it should be gone. Either way, they should be gone, no?
How mmuch ofv all science effort has been aimed at having better methods of killing people, 70% or a little better. How much has been suppressive like Dupont getting hemp outlawed, 20% and add in repeating what didn't work and flat out lies and deceptions and there you have science.
Doesn't this type of forum log the distinct "Mac address" of a PC used in registering??
Oh BS. That's a standard tactic of yours, I've seen you do it a dozen times. When you're challenged you start demanding detailed expositions of things any reasonably intelligent and educated person already knows. I won't be drawn into that.
You're talking about politics, not science,but even if those claims were defensible, and I don't believe they are, they're not relevant to the point, which was that among the various ways we've tried to understand and make sense of and control the world around us, science is the one that provably works.
Not detailed expositions, Dex. Just supporting evidence or deflated/defensible versions of your original assertions.
There are different types of science is there not, do the ones that get the most funding always have to do with enhancing how educated the 'minions'. (who may complain that $630B was spend on how to educate them and 1,000 times that was spent on how to eradicate them is a 'sneaky way')
Would using language to discuss how little we have evolved in the time that 'we' have been communicating with each other also be 'dumb'? Science goes in the direction it is told to move in so I'm going to go out on a limb and say all that is being used that science engineered is not just so we could be holding this 'talk' was not invented so we could have this 'talk'.
This is your standard answer to all of my various questions.
Only because it is constantly rewritten because of what they had already 'gotten wrong' and vanity plays a part in how easily they will admit they have something in error, if they are allowed to.
Science is the tool rthat should allow us to accomplish what we set out to do. NASA is off exploring how to get methane from Saturn's moons when they should be determining the best slope for the banks of a river in Africa that caters to many migrating herds and the lives saved allows the herds to be thinned out and the meat used as food for the people rather than there being a way too much for the crocs who will still get the elderly but the young make it across alive. That is science I could get behind. $1t spend on space exploration is about 5,000 years too early, .. at least.
Cat Ballou Clip - YouTube
If you weren't sure before due to lack of information what makes you so sure you have it figured out now?
Apology accepted, ..... as will your next one.
If you weren't sure before due to lack of information what makes you so sure you have it figured out now?
Apology accepted, ..... as will your next one.
Last edited:
You DO know that NASA is an acronym, don't you, and what it stands for? That task could in no conceivable way be any part of NASA's mandate. Every time you sit down at your keyboard you show once again how little you understand of what's going on in the world.
That's because it's true.
I've already pointed out that the evidence for my first assertion is all around you and you know it, you can see it perfectly well and have even talked about it in other posts. But I'll give you an obvious example anyway. It wasn't very long ago that people commonly died from infection following relatively minor injuries, about half of children died before reaching five years old, and a substantial fraction of women and children died from the birthing process. What was your paradigm ever able to do about that in its thousands of years of existence? Nothing. And my paradigm, in its few centuries of existence? Fixed it.
You got my second assertion wrong and I'm not about to defend your version of it. Get it right, show me you know what I said, and I'll think about it.
Last edited:
You're kidding, right? Just trolling, right? You can't be serious about requiring a link to verify what everyone with half a brain already knows is fact.
Would have been nicer if he'd told us about them instead of letting us stumble around for 100,000 years first.