Into the Night
Verified User
No, that's YOU.
Nothing is stopping you from answering my question.
My description of the two people is more than enough to answer the question.
Argument of the Stone fallacy. You can't just laugh these away, Sock.Yes you are, as the links below prove.
Into the Night said:The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory
The United States no longer exists.
FOX is owned and operated by DEMOCRATS.
(J6 rioters) are violent Democrats, dressed up as 'Trump supporters'.
There was no Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Harvard doesn't teach programming or computers.
Saying humans are biological and have conciousness is not an answer to the four questions in the OP
Please post statements from a legitimate scientific source showing the scientific community has provided widely accepted answers for the questions in the OP.
Obvious, since they are different people.I think it does matter how one chooses to live. The difference between the life of Donald Trumpf and the Dalai Lama seens self evident to me.
Buzzword fallacy. You still don't know what 'reality' is or how it's defined. Random numbers are a part of mathematics.I'm not sure randomness applies to natural reality.
Including random numbers.The cosmos seems to be highly organized on mathmatical principles,
An interesting argument. However, it IS possible to sterilize liquid water (no life).and as far as we know life seems to be inevitable in the presence of liquid water
Health has no 'level'. There is no number associated with 'health'. Health cannot change. Climate cannot change.Oooooook. Whatever you need to tell yourself. I mean, you can't expect me to take you seriously, can you? I describe two people with obviously different levels of health, but you expect me to believe that you need clarification to be able to acknowledge that there is a difference in their level of health?
The SUV is running, and the car engulfed in flames is not. What has this got to do with 'health' or 'climate', neither of which can change?My wife and I, and our elderly neighbors, were invited to a wedding a couple of months ago. Our neighbors are in their '80s and don't like to drive at night, so they asked me to drive their 2022 Honda SUV. It was a very nice vehicle. All the bells and whistles, interior was immaculate. Exterior was an amazing shape. What clarification would you need to be able to say that their SUV is in better condition than the car that I saw on the side of the road, literally engulfed in flames?
With a straight face (I assume) you type this nonsense. Unbelievable and unbelievably embarrassing for you.
"ability to roast s'mores"
So, you're done? You still have no science, I see, i.e. a perfect companion for your lack of clarification and lack of defined terms.
Have a great weekend.
You can roast s'mores better on a burning car than on one that driving.
You are such a moron.Damocles said the new format will prevent stalkers from being able to read or respond to your posts when they are on ignore. All people like Into the Night come here for. He will disappear.
Keep tap dancing....
You are such a moron.
The new format will not stop people like me from reading and/or responding to your posts of overflowing stupidity (such as this post). I will still be able to respond to your stupidity-filled posts all the same. What changes is that you, IF you have me on ignore, will no longer receive notifications that I have reacted to or have quoted a post of yours.
What are "levels of health"?I describe two people with obviously different levels of health
I find it to be a very welcome update as well.Exactly. Basically, it's an improvement on the notification system of the forum. Personally, I welcome it.
So you refuse to define your words and phrases. Therefore you are not asking a question.
And you have so far refused to answer IBDaMann's question and spent more time evading than anything else.
What are "levels of health"?
How does one gain (or lose) "levels of health"?
Health is not a video game.
I would need your definition of "condition" and of "better condition." The moment your definition of "condition" includes "ability to roast smores", I will point out the error in your logic.
As promised, I will point out that smores can be roasted over a car that is englufed in flames whereas a car that is not engulfed in flames is in no condition to be roasting smores.With a straight face (I assume) you type this nonsense. "ability to roast s'mores"
No, it's about understanding. You need to clearly define your terms.If you (all 3 of you) don't like the term level, please, pick whatever term you like to describe the range of health differences we see.
Oh, but here's the problem. All this tap dancing isn't actually about understanding to better answer the question. It's to avoid answering the question.
As promised, I will point out that smores can be roasted over a car that is englufed in flames whereas a car that is not engulfed in flames is in no condition to be roasting smores.