Moontanman

If you did its quite vague, care to tell me which page one post said this?

Then that is what you should have said.

Why would you expect a ICBM to go any further than its designed to? Its the war head that matters not the vehicle that delivers it.

I'm suggesting your assertion is not accurate and the reasons you appear to be giving have nothing to do with the effectiveness or lack thereof of ICBMs or more reasonably the warheads they contain. Nuclear warheads could indeed be used to deflect an asteroid or at least I see no reason they could not be used effectively. Where or not other methods would be more effective is not the issue in this case.

Seriously? Am ICBM warhead cannot explode in space or are you saying a nuclear warhead can only be launched on an ICBM?

As I said... A bit pedantic don't you think? They way you define truth can be used to deny reality, or even more troubling device to not take e a vaccine because you can't prove absolutely the vaccine is 100% effective. Just because we can't prove something absolutely doesn't mean it's not true and it definitely doesn't mean bs beliefs are valid just because someone believes them. Belief does not equal knowledge and in fact belief often prevents knowledge from being accepted. "Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box, religion is a smile on a dog"

ok, wouldn't the explosion have to be quite close to the earth for that to matter? I mean worrying about radiation from a nuke in space would be a bit like worrying the ocean will be polluted by salt by adding a bucket of water from the dead sea to the ocean?

I guess UFOs are alien spacecraft must be true since so many people believe it?

How are nuclear explosions in space a risk for fallout?

How believable it is has nothing to do with the reality of it.

Belief does not equal knowledge, holy books contain as much bs as they do anything else, I never said the Koran doesn't contain wisdom, but it contains far more "wisdom" that will get you arrested than it does "wisdom" that is useful and the vast majority of what it says is simply wrong. It contains nothing that is worthwhile enough to make belief in Islam as the source of "wisdom" as written down by a god. The Bible is no better nor is any other so-called holy book. They are all nothing but the favorite myths of primitive people, anything they get right is simply a case of a blind pig finding an acorn. Now you guys can equivocate belief and truth all you want but our entire civilization is based on science, belief and faith do not figure into science, in fact science specifically forbids them. I will continue to rely on science and reality and limit my beliefs to those things that have been independently confirmed by science. Imagine scientific papers being confirmed by belief, yeah, whatever he asserts in this paper is true because I believe it... yeah that's the ticket! You can continue to believe whatever you want and as long as you live inside your own head I am sure that will be sufficient for walking around but I'm betting when it comes down to a truth that matters you like me will turn to truths that have been confirmed by the scientific method. Jump off a building and no amount of belief will allow you to sprout wings and the waiting ground will always confirm reality over belief. Belief does not equal reality! Science rules... belief drools. BTW, the Earth was never flat no matter who believed it was, the people who believed it was flat, exactly like the idiots who still claim its flat, were and are wrong! No amount of belief will make the earth flat, no amount of belief will make the universe heliocentric, demonic possession will never be the cause of disease, neither Yahweh, Jesus, Muhammad, Ahura Mazda, Krishna, Buddha, Adrianna, or any other deity is gonna save you from the ignorance their followers proclaim as truth.

Anton does a good job of explaining the science in the papers he uses, I would have to check out his content from other sources if it was something controversial.

you win, I am evidently a dumb ass because I cannot accept that truth is subjective, I'll leave you and Dim to it.

Dim said he didn't "give a shit about the truth" and we, quite evidently, have a completely different definition of truth. In my world truth is that which you can demonstrate to be true, not what you want to true or what you believe to be true. Evidently in your world the word truth is somewhat iffy depending on your belief. Truth, reality, and belief depend on the individual yet when someone on this forum asserts something as true they are expected to back up that assertion with data, evidently you and Dim are outside that parameter. No need to argue the earth isn't flat because if that is what is believed then it must be the reality... WOW, UFOs must be alien space craft, vaccines don't work because there are people who don't believe they do and... oh my goodness all I have to do is believe and I can fly, come on Tinker Bell let's fly away to never never land! Chaos rules! Everything is a we believe it to be!

It's your subjective belief, you are entitled to it, just don't try to convince others its an objective truth. Its important to me that I only believe things that can be shown to be true, what we believe quite often decides our actions if you believe something is true that is not then you risk thinking others should act or conform to those beliefs. If you believe that everyone has to believe the way you do, or at least live under laws that enforce your beliefs then you need to justify that belief. Again if what is true is not important to you then I have no reason to discuss anything with you based on your own admission that truth doesn't matter to you. Why does solipsism keep coming to mind here?

There is a thread about eliminating yellow jacket nests in people yards without getting stung or destroying the yards or using persistent poisons, everything from dry ice to vacuum cleaners have been proposed. Phosphine does seem to be a bit over the top but since its heavier than air it might work.

Both are forgetting that this is a belief, not a fact. And now someone is trying to force that belief under punishment of red demerit points ( way worse than burning in hell 😄 ). The argument that something is 'real' is also ineffective. If reality is what we perceive, signals subjectively interpreted by our brains, then someone tripping on acid sees a different reality than I do. I'm told it's pedantic, and sharing a reality is what makes it 'real'; would a group of color blind people who don't see the color red assume there is no color red ? Or for that matter, why is shared reality period dependent; in earlier times, no one could detect IR or UV radiation, so it didn't exist ???? As for Phi believing in humans, not Gods ... Donald Trump has a few stories to tell you; all his followers believe in him ! Belief does not dictate truth no matter what disgusting lump of human excrement you follow. I've been a member of this forum for many years and I have always been told that if you assert something as true then you have to show it. I am not asserting a belief I am asking dim to show his beliefs are true, if that is wrong then I wonder why I have been called on showing the truth of any and all assertions I have made here over the years. If the truth of it doesn't matter then why does this forum even exist?

Why do you care?

No it does not, if you don't care about truth then there is no way to have a discussion about what is true.

Then there is no point to this discussion.

I have to ask, is it important to you that your beliefs are true?

You have the theist delusion, your need for a sky daddy is sad. I can call you delusional with just as much authority as you have to call me delusional. The only thing that matters is what you can show, what you believe is meaningless.

I don't have a god... because I see no empirical evidence of gods, goddesses, demons, devils, or anything else not demonstrably part of objective reality. I don't want it to say anything, I simply read what it actually says.