It was a land based explosion, not dropped. mounted in a tower. was the first tested plutonium bomb. This is the type of bomb that requires incredible accuracy. It was amazing, it is far more difficult to produce and successfully detonate than a uranium based bomb. Just fantastic.....
I suppose, do you know that the united states has detonated around 1200 nuclear device, This compares to 800 for the rest of the world combined. But that is a total of 2000 bombs. I was fine with the first couple of tests to prove the point ( accept for the hiroshima and nagasaki, that was a war crime) but most people don't know how many where let off. of that about 500 were on its own soil, the other 700 were on atolls and literally destroyed entire ecosystems.
I'm 100% sure.
its like Richard Dawkins said...never say never but on his scale of 1-7 positive theist to total atheist, i rate myself a 6. as does Dawkins rate himself.
"Based on what evidence?"
-His last several replies.
That's what any statistician would call a sampling error. Logic fail.
OK, maybe you can take out the garbage, but here on this thread, what I have noticed from you trolling me, is that you have no substance, only insults.
I can not say you are correct or incorrect as I nave not seen any posts of detail.
SansDeity - Now is your chance if you have a small minute to put together a summary of your view in relation to MCT's position.
MCT - I can only assume you have more information available to you than me on this matter.
He has no position, other than my position makes him want to insult me.
Ahh yes! Take out the garbage! Now there is a comment that just oozes substance. Has it ever occurred to you that you are a caricature of yourself MCT?
Anywho, I'm just making accurate observations. I do not have as much free time as you to set up residence here and spend inordinate amounts of time each day debating abstract topics. Even if I did I'm not sure I would do it on an atheist site as I'd be much better served doing so on, say, scienceblogs where I would be conversing with actual scientists rather than a kid who took a class in epistemology. But I can understand your fear of debating such topics on places like those and your preference for doing it here.
I have plenty of substance on this thread. Your observations are anything but accurate. It is not a scientific issue. It is a philosophical one. I do not debate scientific findings, only their relevance to the nature of existence.
Pretty much everything I've read from MCT comes with an explanation, describing how he got to his position.
What more is needed from anybody?