someone234 said:@Evidence Aliens are the ones we want to surrender to. AI and other humans are not.
There is none, as mentioned, God created natural law and he can break this to do his own bidding. Therefore, he can create life without the presence of a female. However, natural law dictates that a female and a male must reproduce in oder to create new life. Therefore, if God can create life without a female, he must be able to act outside of natural law, which is exactly what he can do as God if he is natural law's creator.someone234 said:@WilliamSchulz so where is the female counterpart for god?
The two images display the same phenomenon.
Obviously, the sun is not just above the trees here, but if it were, and there was a tree on the opposite side of the sun, it would throw some rays in the opposite direction, as we see here in the original, largely ignored image that I presented.
Pogue said:Are the new tariffs on steel and aluminum good or bad?
Trump said that the tariffs - 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum - would take place in 15 days. But he said individual countries could negotiate with the U.S., leaving open the possibility that some might be exempted from the tariffs.
According to experts, it is bad. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/trumps-tariffs-will-do-more-harm-than-good-experts-say
I can't honestly address the very many "I have done this or that's" in your post, because it's not certain what you're speaking about.
"What you are doing, is listing facts, and listing difference; then asserting that this means he is wrong. You havent
explained, justified or presented an argument as to why these observable facts show his arguments are wrong, and you have provided no explanation, justification or argument that explains why you think these differences are relevant."
Those obvious differences and facts is the justification and argument. The tracks appear to converge, because they are receding parallel lines going away from the observer. The rays i pointed out are not anywhere near the observer. They start in the clouds and go away from the observer. I really can't dumb it down any more, but feel free to continue denying that I've pointed this out repeatedly! I thoroughly enjoy repeating myself while you do a little rhetorical dance around every point I make.
Once again, I've pointed out obvious differences in the circumstances and you strap on your blinders and lie about my refutations, it's quite dishonest and literally a waste of time, but these kids seem to look up to you, despite the countless rhetorical fallacies in your arguments, and thus I am facing 3-4 thoughtless individuals. One who cannot develop an original rational thought, one who thinks he's a resurrected alien, and of course the flip flopper. It's as though I don't stand a chance. My only hope is that someone with a critically able mind will chance upon this conversation and be able to think for himself, and recognize your blatant denial and rhetorical fallaciousness.
Please explain a laser shinting through water, presented as:So this is yet another fruitless conversation reminiscent of any other post, you've offered to repost your refutation, and when I point out that just claiming that the experiments were "botched" is not a valid rebuttal, your reply is just another I've already done this, that or the other, followed by a lie, that i haven't provided a reason that we should use line of sight in water, while claiming that shining a laser through laser water refutes every position I've put forth so far, which is itself hasty generalization, ad hoc, and irrelevant.
@goober I think we were here about refraction when you just started asserting things you've claimed you've done.