doG

The burden of proof is to prove that god does exist if it's to be considered as any kind of theory as the cause of anything. As a side note, we're not blind so you don't need to upsize your text. If you're blind or vision impaired use ctrl + to increase the font in your browser for your own ease of viewing.

Huh? Why do you think the Earth's orbit relies on the gravity of any other stars that it's own?

'nuf said...

IMO, as an example, it would cost far more to terraform Mars than to simply explore Mars. I used 'resource animal' as a figure of speech for exorbitant cost.

I do agree with that but space exploration and exploitation is not the resource animal that terraforming is. I wholeheartedly support space exploration and research to the extent we can afford it. Yes, the resources spent on war are really a waste without a proportionate reward. We do lose a despot here and there but the expense is tremendous.

No one in particular. I just see it as a waste of available resources when there are people starving to death now. It would be nice to terraform other planets or moons as stepping stones away from Earth. I just don't see it as an affordable option right now or the near future. Then again, I don't understand why the fanciest, most glamorous building in the ghetto is usually the church, built with money taken from the poor and wasted on a place for the poor to worship while they starve. It would seem to me that we could apply our efforts to advance technology to take care of mankind's needs before we pursue mankind's wants. I was simply pointing out my opinion on this priority.

Just wondering, why would we waste the effort it would take to make another world habitable when we can't feed the population that exists on this one today? It reminds me of a video by Roy Beck that shows why immigration can never be a solution to help overpopulated, impoverished people. That the only way to really help them is at home.

Same demand over and over and over, ad nauseum....to support his/her assertion that the definition of 'law' is 'god'. Just one link to any reputable dictionary anywhere on the planet. You brought to my attention though that calling that lack of support a mark against the original assertion was itself an Ad Hominem attack by some interpretation so I'm really at a loss here. Is it really an attack to demand someone support their assertion, particularly at a science forum?

The TI-89 has that capability. There's an emulator here.

Not really, When someone attacks instead of supporting their assertion they effectively imply that they can't support it. Acknowledging that inability is not an attack.

BS. An insult of that magnitude could be nothing but a personal attack. You are not worthy of my time. Good bye!!!

To some extent I see that as self centered since it doesn't account for your partner's needs/desires, it's not so simple as whatever makes you happy. If you are in a relationship with someone that needs that as a key part of their relationship with you then your relationship as a whole will be happier when each of you as individuals is happier. If either has a void in their happiness then your relationship will have a void in it as well. For any individual with a high libido, sex will be a key part of their relationship with another.

That's it. I was just clarifying that for others following the thread since it's had over 240 views thus far...

Wow! I hope you do understand that attacking those that question your assertions does not support those assertions, it helps to invalidate them. Thank you for the helping hand.

No! I'm insisting on a valid definition of law from a reputable source that references god. You said, and I want to see you back that up because god is effectively a meaningless word to me. It is certainly too ambiguous to be synonymous with 'law' so I'm pretty certain you can't back up that claim from any valid reference material.

There seems to be a subtle difference here...

Don't be. I was just making use of an opportunity to poke some fun at you. No ill intent intended....

Are you saying that your wife and you are still having pre-marital sex?

So!!! I posted the etymology of law at the beginning of the thread and pointed out to you that it references god no where. Your interpretation of what's not in the dictionary doesn't really matter to anyone but you, the one that chooses to use their own definition. The unsupported foundation of your premise that law=god undermines your whole argument. If you can't support that assertion then it's really a waste of time to follow what you have built on top of it.

And that right there is where your understanding breaks down. There is no 'how we think of this as God' regarding law. There is no we, only you that has this twisted definition of law. No one else here sees this as you do. You've invented your own definitions that no one else uses and you keep arguing that your definitions are the right ones. No they're not. If they were you would be able to find at least one dictionary on the planet that agrees with you and thus far we've not seen you provide that support for your assertion. Now, if you can't find any support for your assertion you need to accept the fact that you're wrong. You can't just make willy-nilly assertions and claim that they're right because you said so and everyone else is wrong. Just because it's your pet hypothesis does not make it right.

That's why it is better to use a tool like HijackThis to create a log file of processes for you that you can post online for more knowledgeable people to use to inspect and advise you on your system. There are many malware forums that will help you identify bad programs from a hijackthis report. I suspect Hitman fixed your trouble though.

I'm kind of thinking that Sunon thing is probably not going to do well with a 1kg rotor but maybe I'm missing something here. Could you fill me in on the blanks Externet?

At puberty, around 38 years ago. It feels FANTASTIC!!!

Thank you. That was my problem with this whole thread to begin with. Opening topics weren't phrased as speculation at all but stated as fact when they're not.

Thank you. Sorry my expectation has been interpreted as hateful when all I've really tried to ask is compliance with this rule: Perhaps this thread belongs in Speculations. Sorry I didn't just ask for that in the first place.