Remember me
▼ Content

The Daily Sermon



Page 2 of 3<123>
17-08-2022 21:38
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2137)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Swan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]Roj475 wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
In your own words, what is the risk if CO2 is increasing globally? Again, in your own words. Don't let Google do your thinking for you.


I have used Google on here for ease of dictionary definitions and would not [intentionally] use to make an argument where opinion/ differing positions may arise.

Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.



You are aware that Google in this instance takes the information from another source; I would rather not open multiple screens with being in work, especially with the company firewall but here is where Google took the wording-

https://www.britannica.com/science/fossil-fuel

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fossil%20fuel

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fossil-fuel


Just a ballpark guess for me...what percentage of the information on Google would you say is correct?

Does Google have filters and is it censored?

Is Google agenda driven in any way?


LOL what percentage of your info did not come from the net?

Dorky

Says the resident Google Verification Speculation Specialist. Sorry, I totally overlooked you would be offended by my Google bashing.

Stick to pulling weeds in the garden kid. Have you hugged your eggplant today?


As for my garden me and the wife picked about 300 tomatoes this morning and already turned them into tomato juice.

PS. You get 100 percent of your info from the net so it really does not matter what search engine that you use. However in your mind as long as Google was not involved it is real.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You may continue wacking off now


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 17-08-2022 21:41
18-08-2022 18:02
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Yet, you have done exactly that. Your Google definition of "fossil fuel" is purely a speculative opinion.
[quote]

Google has not created the definition.

[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
Just a ballpark guess for me...what percentage of the information on Google would you say is correct?

Does Google have filters and is it censored?

Is Google agenda driven in any way?



Are you saying America is not educated using the English language.

WHich American education institute/ body's reference for the English language would you like?

Alternatively, does America not have a system for education?
19-08-2022 03:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Roj475 wrote:America seems to have a unique way to reduce the population compared to other countries of which climate nuts are not the main target group.

Did you just associate Swan with the entirety of America?

You aren't too swift on the uptake, I can see.

Roj475 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:There is no data for the age of the Earth. There is no data for the temperature of the Earth. There is no data for the global atmospheric content of CO2. There is no data for sea level. There is no data for the amount of snow on ice on Earth. What 'data' are your referring to?
If we are unable to measure CO2, does that mean we are unable to measure O2?

Stupid question, like your others. I don't see why you waste everyone's time responding to posts that you can't even read. Into the Night did not write that CO2 cannot be measured.

Roj475 wrote:On the assumption CO2 was increasing globally, then it would be safe to assume that something was decreasing globally...

You just pivoted from the topic at hand to some irrelevant topic, in an attempt to distract attention away from the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Roj475 wrote:I guess it comes down to a person's own perspective... I don't see an extra 5c/ gallon for fuel an issue... Even 10c is loose change but people get overly excited about such a small amount.

Typical Marxist, totally dismissive of the burdens of taxation that they liberally impose onto others. Marxists impose taxes onto others and then virtue signal how they themselves are just so willing to make the sacrifice (which they really don't anticipate having to pay).

Totally dishonest.

I say we pass an additional 10-cent/gallon tax on gasoline and have you pay it for everyone ... and when you run out of money, the tax expires. Are you good with that? Let's here you virtue signal how you're all in for that one because it's important that you follow your personal tax-paying preferences.

19-08-2022 04:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Roj475 wrote:Why do other posters on here say CO2 rising is good for plants?

If you didn't suck at biology, the answer would be obvious to you, as it is to other posters on here..

Do you know what is routinely done at greenhouses, FOR EXAMPLE?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIKPO_mwJ00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSbe6foegS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgLGCH9ErVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4ofr9CQyAE

Do you have any idea why CO2 is a life-essential compound, necessary for all life on earth?

Do you have any idea how much of a complete moron you have to be to believe that CO2 is some sort of pollution or poison, and that we somehow need less of it?

You didn't get very far in school, did you?

19-08-2022 04:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)


Roj475 wrote:Are you saying America is not educated using the English language.

I think he's saying that you are uneducated and that you cannot read English for comprehension, and that because you are uneducated and because you cannot read English for comprehension, you had to ask him what he meant.

Roj475 wrote:WHich American education institute/ body's reference for the English language would you like?

Your question is not genuine since you cannot offer any.

Roj475 wrote:Alternatively, does America not have a system for education?

I think we can agree that you wouldn't recognize an education if you were looking directly at one.

Shouldn't you be advocating for yet another 10-cent tax so that your thought-masters know that you are still as dedicated to the cause as ever?


.
19-08-2022 07:44
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Roj475 wrote:Why do other posters on here say CO2 rising is good for plants?

.All the reports I have seen show improved plant growth in elevated CO2 scenarios on land and in the water
.Alarmists claim the plants will suffer later and do all sorts of crazy stuff.The coral reefs are all fine right now but later it will all crash.
.You have to have extreme warming for this and it has not occurred.Its 20.C. in London
19-08-2022 14:52
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2137)
duncan61 wrote:
Roj475 wrote:Why do other posters on here say CO2 rising is good for plants?

.All the reports I have seen show improved plant growth in elevated CO2 scenarios on land and in the water
.Alarmists claim the plants will suffer later and do all sorts of crazy stuff.The coral reefs are all fine right now but later it will all crash.
.You have to have extreme warming for this and it has not occurred.Its 20.C. in London


Which coral reefs are all fine?


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
19-08-2022 17:06
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
IBdaMann wrote:

You didn't get very far in school, did you?



Seemingly not but far enough to be employed here.

Do you associate success with how far you get in school?
19-08-2022 17:09
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
IBdaMann wrote:
[Your question is not genuine since you cannot offer any.


I offered three above for definition on fossil as opposed to fossil fuel...

Do you pick,

a) Harvard University and the Oxford Dictionary.
b) The widely accepted Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or
c) dictionary.com which seemingly is tied to Trump.

Pick an alternative one that is the basis of education here if you like.
19-08-2022 17:11
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:America seems to have a unique way to reduce the population compared to other countries of which climate nuts are not the main target group.

Did you just associate Swan with the entirety of America?



Swan comes across as your typical American.

Why wouldn't they?
19-08-2022 18:43
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2137)
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:America seems to have a unique way to reduce the population compared to other countries of which climate nuts are not the main target group.

Did you just associate Swan with the entirety of America?



Swan comes across as your typical American.

Why wouldn't they?


I would pay to be typical for a day, but that would make me a moron as well


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-08-2022 06:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Roj475 wrote:Swan comes across as your typical American.

In the same way that you are a typical Brit?

If so, what language is spoken over on that side of the pond?

Roj475 wrote:Why wouldn't they?

Did a random question accidentally slip out?

20-08-2022 06:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Roj475 wrote:I offered three above for definition on fossil as opposed to fossil fuel...

You were supposed to give examples of fossils that are burned for fuel.

You should also list a few fossils that are sold as fuel commercially.

Please provide that.

... *OR* ... please provide examples of fuel for fossils, i.e. fossil fuel.

A few commercially sold examples would be wonderful.

20-08-2022 06:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Roj475 wrote:Seemingly not but far enough to be employed here.

That's the very low bar I was expecting. I presume you'll be asking customers if they'd like to supersize their orders.

Roj475 wrote:Do you associate success with how far you get in school?

I associate a certain level of success to the extent one learns to think for himself, as opposed to being totally dependent upon others to do his thinking for him.

If one is unsuccessful at learning to think for himself then it will be incidental, but highly anticipated, that he will become proficient at asking customers if they would like to supersize their orders.

20-08-2022 13:51
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2137)
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:Seemingly not but far enough to be employed here.

That's the very low bar I was expecting. I presume you'll be asking customers if they'd like to supersize their orders.

Roj475 wrote:Do you associate success with how far you get in school?

I associate a certain level of success to the extent one learns to think for himself, as opposed to being totally dependent upon others to do his thinking for him.

If one is unsuccessful at learning to think for himself then it will be incidental, but highly anticipated, that he will become proficient at asking customers if they would like to supersize their orders.


Was that three of your eight personalities?


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-08-2022 17:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:Was that three of your eight personalities?

My personality is a non-denumerable spectrum.
20-08-2022 17:58
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2137)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Was that three of your eight personalities?

My personality is a non-denumerable spectrum.


Only until someone takes the time to count


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-08-2022 18:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Was that three of your eight personalities?
My personality is a non-denumerable spectrum.
Only until someone takes the time to count

Swan, "non-denumerable" means "not countable." No one can take infinite time to count the uncountable.

Tomatoes, on the other hand, are countable, and you have counted them. Well done. What do you plan to make with your tomato harvest?

[Question: are any of your tomatoes destined to become slices atop barbequed double cheeseburgers with grilled onions and bacon, perhaps some grilled mushrooms as well? Just wondering]

20-08-2022 20:32
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2137)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Was that three of your eight personalities?
My personality is a non-denumerable spectrum.
Only until someone takes the time to count

Swan, "non-denumerable" means "not countable." No one can take infinite time to count the uncountable.

Tomatoes, on the other hand, are countable, and you have counted them. Well done. What do you plan to make with your tomato harvest?

[Question: are any of your tomatoes destined to become slices atop barbequed double cheeseburgers with grilled onions and bacon, perhaps some grilled mushrooms as well? Just wondering]



Actually I do not count tomatoes as this would be a waste of time, actually I estimate especially with grape and cherry tomatoes that grow in strings of ten to thirty.




This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
20-08-2022 21:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:Actually I do not count tomatoes as this would be a waste of time,


Swan wrote:As for my garden me and the wife picked about 300 tomatoes this morning ...


Swan wrote:actually I estimate especially with grape and cherry tomatoes that grow in strings of ten to thirty.

Estimating is still counting, it's just not an exact count.

20-08-2022 22:03
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2137)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually I do not count tomatoes as this would be a waste of time,


Swan wrote:As for my garden me and the wife picked about 300 tomatoes this morning ...


Swan wrote:actually I estimate especially with grape and cherry tomatoes that grow in strings of ten to thirty.

Estimating is still counting, it's just not an exact count.



OK you win as I estimate that you have hundreds of personalities, one of which seems to be fully rational and that only seems to show itself if you take all your meds on a crescent moon in August in the absence of rain and tiger swallowtail butterflies on the third Sunday of the month, divided by two, plus pie and after you lick a toad


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
23-08-2022 21:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[Your question is not genuine since you cannot offer any.


I offered three above for definition on fossil as opposed to fossil fuel...

Fossils are not used for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
Roj475 wrote:
Do you pick,

a) Harvard University and the Oxford Dictionary.
b) The widely accepted Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or
c) dictionary.com which seemingly is tied to Trump.

Pick an alternative one that is the basis of education here if you like.

No dictionary defines any word. That is not the purpose of a dictionary. No dictionary owns any word.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-08-2022 15:32
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[Your question is not genuine since you cannot offer any.


I offered three above for definition on fossil as opposed to fossil fuel...

Fossils are not used for fuel. Fossils don't burn.

Fossils and Fossil Fuels are different... Putting a fossil on a fire would be strange, putting a fossil fuel would not be.

Into the Night wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
Do you pick,

a) Harvard University and the Oxford Dictionary.
b) The widely accepted Merriam-Webster Dictionary, or
c) dictionary.com which seemingly is tied to Trump.

Pick an alternative one that is the basis of education here if you like.

No dictionary defines any word. That is not the purpose of a dictionary. No dictionary owns any word.


What is the purpose of a dictionary?
What would you use to understand the meaning of a word on the basis it was new to you?
24-08-2022 16:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Roj475 wrote: Putting a fossil on a fire would be strange

Yes.

Roj475 wrote:, putting a fossil fuel would not be.

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:What is the purpose of a dictionary?

To specify what words exist in a language and how to spell them. Also, dictionaries often offer individually-interpreted guidance on proper pronunciation for each word. Additionally, dictionaries offer sample usage, both correct and incorrect, to inform the reader how any given word might be used, again regardless of whether such usage is correct.

Roj475 wrote:What would you use to understand the meaning of a word on the basis it was new to you?

I would ask the person using the word for clarification on the intended meaning. I would never rely on a dictionary for a definition because no dictionary owns the English language and no dictionary is the person using the word for which I seek clarification.

Did the UK stop teaching Brits what a dictionary is?
24-08-2022 17:59
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
IBdaMann wrote:Roj475 wrote:, putting a fossil fuel would not be.
What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?


It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) as well as the britannica encyclopedia.

I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries or encyclopedias but I would hope others reading this thread or lurking do accept these knowledge basis.

IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:What would you use to understand the meaning of a word on the basis it was new to you?

I would ask the person using the word for clarification on the intended meaning. I would never rely on a dictionary for a definition because no dictionary owns the English language and no dictionary is the person using the word for which I seek clarification.

Did the UK stop teaching Brits what a dictionary is?


Sounds a little like 'Bobby Boucher : My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush.'

The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

Afraid I have to go and get myself ready to, as you previously put it, continue my good work in supersizing Americans.
Edited on 24-08-2022 18:58
24-08-2022 19:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?
It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.
24-08-2022 19:53
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2137)
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?
It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.


Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
24-08-2022 20:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
...removing severely damaged quoting...
Roj475 wrote:
Fossils and Fossil Fuels are different... Putting a fossil on a fire would be strange, putting a fossil fuel would not be.

There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils do not burn. Word games won't help you.
Roj475 wrote:
What is the purpose of a dictionary?

To standardize spelling and pronunciation. RQAA
Roj475 wrote:
What would you use to understand the meaning of a word on the basis it was new to you?

History.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-08-2022 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Roj475 wrote:, putting a fossil fuel would not be.
What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?


It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) as well as the britannica encyclopedia.

Illiteracy: Proper noun not capitalized. Use of singular for plural.
Logic errors: Void authority fallacy. False authority fallacy.

No dictionary or encyclopedia defines any word.

Roj475 wrote:
I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries or encyclopedias
but I would hope others reading this thread or lurking do accept these knowledge basis.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:What would you use to understand the meaning of a word on the basis it was new to you?

I would ask the person using the word for clarification on the intended meaning. I would never rely on a dictionary for a definition because no dictionary owns the English language and no dictionary is the person using the word for which I seek clarification.

Did the UK stop teaching Brits what a dictionary is?


Sounds a little like 'Bobby Boucher : My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush.'

Cliche fallacy.
Roj475 wrote:
The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Paradox. Irrational. You must clear your paradox.
Roj475 wrote:
You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

There is no voting bloc for defining words. Paradox. You must clear your paradox. You are being irrational.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-08-2022 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?
It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.

He just walked into a paradox. He is being quite irrational.

1) I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries.
2) The understanding of a dictionary is defining words.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-08-2022 20:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?
It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.


Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this reaction to run exist naturally underground.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-08-2022 20:44
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2548)
Let's play an easy word game. The winner will be awarded steaks, beer, and a night on the town with Sven Isen.

All you have to do pick out the word that doesn't belong. Super easy.

1) wood
2) coal
3) bullshit
4) kerosene
5) gasoline
6) fossils
7) diesel
8) propane
9) hydrogen
10) alcohol

*If you were a winner in the last 30 day you are ineligible. That means you, IBdaMann.
24-08-2022 22:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

Because there are no aliens involved, just geological activity deep in the earth's crust and upper mantle, where there are high temperatures and pressures, and plenty of carbon and hydrogen, among other things. The earth generates hydrocarbons in vast quantities through the Fischer-Tropsch process and those hydrocarbons seep upward until they hit impermeable rock ... and accumulate in wells.

The person or organization that happens to find the well makes a lot of money.
25-08-2022 02:20
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2137)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?
It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.


Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this reaction to run exist naturally underground.


Not without the right fuels to fuel the process


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
25-08-2022 03:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this reaction to run exist naturally underground.
Not without the right fuels to fuel the process

Fortunately the earth has plenty of fuel to keep on creating hydrocarbons for billions of years.

This is why hydrocarbons are a renewable resource. We have the earth to keep making more.
25-08-2022 16:43
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

Because there are no aliens involved, just geological activity deep in the earth's crust and upper mantle, where there are high temperatures and pressures, and plenty of carbon and hydrogen, among other things. The earth generates hydrocarbons in vast quantities through the Fischer-Tropsch process and those hydrocarbons seep upward until they hit impermeable rock ... and accumulate in wells.

The person or organization that happens to find the well makes a lot of money.


Obviously, no man has ever drilled that deep, or dug a tunnel to visit. It's just a philosophical possibility, so it must be 'amphibian'. It's faith-based, just as much as global warming.
25-08-2022 19:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
HarveyH55 wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Obviously, no man has ever drilled that deep, or dug a tunnel to visit. It's just a philosophical possibility,

While it is true that no human has ever observed the formation of hydrocarbons, a rational adult can nonetheless understand the Fischer-Tropsche process, note that the same conditions necessary for that process exist within the earth and can use that as a rational basis for believing that to be the mechanism for the formation of hydrocarbons.

Your belief, however, is as irrational as it apparently is deeply-held. You begin with the same premise that no human has ever observed the formation of hydrocarbons, and you are also aware of the very real ability to synthesize hydrocarbons using the Fischer-Tropsche process. From that point on, however, you capriciously reject the Fischer-Tropsche process for unknown reasons in deference to believing that hydrocarbons are a product of a violation of thermodynamics, i.e. that decaying biological matter somehow rots into higher forms of energy. You cannot point to any examples of decaying matter forming into fuel, yet you feel threatened by those who have differing beliefs, to the point that you make lame attempts to mock them (I write "lame" because they are rational views and your attempts to mock have no rational support).

Of course, you are free to hold any irrational belief you wish. Your mockery of rational beliefs is comical, however.

HarveyH55 wrote: so it must be 'amphibian'. It's faith-based, just as much as global warming.

In this case, your need to reject rational views in order to cling to your violation of physics is a direct parallel to the manner in which warmizombies cling to greenhouse effect for dear life. Even after the violation of physics which they hold dear has been revealed, they cannot let go. When they are asked why they reject rational explanations, they become dishonest and EVASIVE, just as you became when I tried getting you to help me understand why you recoil at basic science. I asked very politely. You EVADED. Oh well.

Do you really want to take this out of the realm of rationality and make it a mud-slinging fest? We can certainly do that but I would much rather understand why you believe what you believe. Could you tell me without trying to change the subject?

.
26-08-2022 01:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?
It is one term available in the American accepted Dictionary(ies) ...

Another "accepted" term is "pivot" ... which is what you just did. You did not answer my question. For your convenience, I'll ask again:

What fuel do fossils use, i.e. fossil fuel?

Roj475 wrote:I am not asking you to accept the definition in dictionaries

Irrelevant. You are intent on getting me to accept the term itself.

I do not.

Answer the question: What fuel do you believe fossils use?

Thereafter you can explain what fossils you believe are sold commercially as fuel.

At the end of all this, I will be asking you why you accept that term. You have every right to not be a Marxist dupe, and to reject the term as I have.

Roj475 wrote:The understanding of a dictionary is [amongst other things] defining words.

Incorrect. I just explained to you why it is not. Apparently, you are too stupid to learn.

One more time. No dictionary owns the English language. I don't understand why you believe that any particular dictionary somehow does. The answer might be that you really are that stupid.

I'll just presume that's the reason.

You might very well be too stupid to realize that there are many English dictionaries, and no two provide identical usage descriptions. Hence, it should be obvious to anyone cognizant enough to master a light switch that none can possibly be definitions, and that they can only be usage descriptions.

If you can't grasp that then I can see why you have no hope of understanding the concept of science's unambiguous definitions.

Roj475 wrote: You say that is not the case, but that I would hope is what the majority of the population see one of the uses as.

I get it. As a Marxist, you need the on-demand capability to hijack words, and to present dictionary descriptions of incorrect usage as "definitions."

I understand why you rest your hope on that form of enablement of your dishonesty. You should just realize why it will never work on me.

.


Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

See the Fischer-Tropsche process. The conditions for this reaction to run exist naturally underground.


Not without the right fuels to fuel the process

There are no requirements. All you need is high temperature, some source of carbon (like CO2), and hydrogen. That naturally exists underground.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 26-08-2022 01:28
26-08-2022 02:21
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

Because there are no aliens involved, just geological activity deep in the earth's crust and upper mantle, where there are high temperatures and pressures, and plenty of carbon and hydrogen, among other things. The earth generates hydrocarbons in vast quantities through the Fischer-Tropsch process and those hydrocarbons seep upward until they hit impermeable rock ... and accumulate in wells.

The person or organization that happens to find the well makes a lot of money.


Obviously, no man has ever drilled that deep, or dug a tunnel to visit. It's just a philosophical possibility, so it must be 'amphibian'. It's faith-based, just as much as global warming.


Nice shot Harvey. Right in the face. The engineer I am working with said to me {my geo buddies are good at finding oil but do not know how it formed}The decaying lifeforms is just a theory. Coal is easy to identify and the different types but not so much oil and gas


duncan61
26-08-2022 17:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
duncan61 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Why not just put out your paper that what is being called fossil fuel or crude oil is really produced by underground aliens from Europa?

Because there are no aliens involved, just geological activity deep in the earth's crust and upper mantle, where there are high temperatures and pressures, and plenty of carbon and hydrogen, among other things. The earth generates hydrocarbons in vast quantities through the Fischer-Tropsch process and those hydrocarbons seep upward until they hit impermeable rock ... and accumulate in wells.

The person or organization that happens to find the well makes a lot of money.


Obviously, no man has ever drilled that deep, or dug a tunnel to visit. It's just a philosophical possibility, so it must be 'amphibian'. It's faith-based, just as much as global warming.


Nice shot Harvey. Right in the face. The engineer I am working with said to me {my geo buddies are good at finding oil but do not know how it formed}The decaying lifeforms is just a theory.

Falsified. Oil is found well below any fossil layer, and is not a fossil.
duncan61 wrote:
Coal is easy to identify and the different types but not so much oil and gas

It's easy to identify the different types of oil as well. Methane is methane.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate The Daily Sermon:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The link is to an article in the Daily Mail about asteroids and the last ice age4516-03-2018 23:15
Science daily.com - hydrogen sulphide1308-10-2017 20:44
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact