doG

Why should I attempt to prove or disprove Athena's assertion? Is it not Athena's obligation to support it? BTW, I did investigate and posted the etymology of 'law' earlier in the thread even though I didn't feel it my obligation to do so. I've been waiting since for support which is still yet to come.

Does this help?

Do understand that PTFE or any high temperature plastic is going to have a compressive yield point where the radial load will extrude the material. You should examine the forces John and I mentioned above and compare them with the mechanical properties listed here. IMO, this approach to the design would become a lesson on how not to build a gyroscope.

Wow!!! Do you really want the rest of us to believe that you really believe your assertion that law=god is unchallengable? That we should all just take your word for it just because you say so? Google? Sorry, no thanks. I'm not dumb enough to go looking for any source that supports the assertion law=god. There aren't any. Looking for them would be like shopping for ocean front property in Arizona. It's a ludicrous assertion that no one can or will support.

Sorry, not trying to fight. Just trying to get the point across that there's rules here and they're not just a decoration.

Look through the lectures in the Surface Tension module at MIT's OpenCourseWare. It's probably covered there.

Wrong answer. The rules here do not require anyone to prove your assertion wrong, they require you to support your assertion. MODS????

None of those things you called belief systems are belief systems at all and they are not religions. You've made an assertion and the rules here require you to support it. Support it or retract it!

Wow!!! ^^^Matthew is hearsay^^^ ^^^Mark is more hearsay^^^ ^^^Luke is even more hearsay^^^ ^^^And John is still more hearsay^^^ Now, please support your assertion that the 4 gospels are the "first party eyewitness testimony" you claim them to be!!!

Small nitpick here. The U.S. is a constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition, not actually a democracy.

In addition, I would suppose that the proverbial pair, Adam and Eve, likely pair bonded long before Jesus walked the Earth and I suspect it was not a religious arrangement for them

Do you realize that you are effectively asserting the majority of the people are reasonable? That the 51% of a given population, the rulers, are the reasonable subset of the total population? Is this really not obvious to you?

You seem to have a misunderstanding on what hearsay is. It is not hearsay for John to tell you who made the coffee. OTOH, if someone else were to ask you who made the coffee and you said that John said that your secretary did it then that would be hearsay, i.e. you said John said. If Matthew, Mark, Luke or John says that, "Jesus said..." then their statement of what they heard him say is hearsay, i.e. hear-say.

Doesn't Newton's First law, the velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is acted upon by an external force, imply that all motion is perpetual until acted on by an external force? A force like friction or gravity? That the velocity would be forever constant if it weren't for such external forces?

The gospels are nothing more than he said, "he said" which is hearsay by definition. It's not like any of those writers of those books sat down under oath at some kind of inquisition to testify so I don't buy the claim at all of it being testimony. The authors of the four canonical Christian gospels were nothing more than four evangelists. That does not make their writings testimony. Why? I'm pro LG marriage and I'm a Jeffersonian Christian. Are you saying I'm in error here? That I can't be any kind of Christian if I support gay marriage?

Nowhere is the term democracy defined to be rule by reason. Go ahead. Google it. Point out any source that defines it as you do. It is by definition rule by the majority and has nothing to do with the majority using reason to rule, only the fact that they outnumber the minority. Now, you are the one that made the assertion in the first place that democracy is rule by reason. It is not anyone's job here to support questioning your assertion. It is your job to support your assertion so get busy. Provide us some evidence that your definition is right and all the other ones are wrong because you are the ONLY one claiming democracy to mean rule by reason.

False! None of these are religions. Time to support such assertions.

Now you've stated that fallacy twice. It's high time you back it up!

An audio taper potentiometer will work.

IMO the creationist is the complication you'll have to deal with regardless of the examples you dig up

You'll need to take a look at de Laval nozzles and the Venturi effect to account for how the ratio of the nozzles' areas effects the speed and pressure of the exhaust media. In the case of rockets the de Laval nozzle ratios are specifically calculated for the atmospheric pressure at the altitude the rocket engine is designed to operate at. That's why 2nd or 3rd stage engines have a much more pronounced flare than booster engines do.

Ring species are an example of speciation that results from accumulated microevolution, otherwise called adaptation or mutation driven by natural selection. The resultant speciation could be categorized as macroevolution, particularly at the end populations where the ability to interbreed has been interrupted by the accumulated change.

Ring species are a good example of how microevolution accumulates into macroevolution given time.

As an example I refer to myself sometimes as a Jeffersonian Christian, one that believes in the Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, without believing Jesus was any kind of god. I find his moral advocation to align well with my own humanist views. Most Christians denounce this though and refer to me as a heathen

Do you classify skepticism as a religion? Forum rule: assertions require support. Please provide some proof of this.