John Cuthber

Luck.

Wiki is generally very good. Mistakes there usually get corrected quickly. The remarkably obvious place to start is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment

Today I learned that Stringjunky doesn't distinguish between weight and density. I must get involved with trading kilos of lead vs kilos of feathers.

Yes, because

Scripture has been discussed for most of history. Can you show any record of this interpretation from before Darwin's time? If not, it's not a prediction; it's a post-facto justification of an unclear book. The whole thing looks like the Texas sharpshooter effect.

Do you realise that many people still don't have a digital calendar, and rely on a paper one?

Trump is an outlier; we should ignore him here.

There is not much chemistry in those questions.

It could be something completely unexpected. Perhaps the charitable organisations in the US just do a better job of convincing people to hand over cash- maybe better advertising? It's unlikely to be one single factor If you look at the list here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index the European countries near the top of the list include the Netherlands who are relatively secular and Ireland ho are much more strongly religious. One bizarre common factor seems- at first glance- to be speaking English as a sole, or major language. Now that's just weird.

I'm not saying I don't accept this "The secularist's complete refusal to accept the historical evidence of widespread conversions, in the early days of the major religions, is evidence that they WERE understood at the time, and so potentially contain wisdom." I'm saying I don't understand it. What are you claiming were understood at the time? The secularists Their refusal to accept historical evidence the major religions Widespread conversions or what? And similarly, what potentially contains wisdom? Anyway re."So you think there's no possibility, at all, that ancient wisdom equates with, so called, modern wisdom?" Someone, and I think it was you claimed before that somehow these religions gave insights that were not available to the secular. I pointed out that it was nonsense, and asked you to cite any example. You failed. So, to clarify. As far as I can see, there is no wisdom in any ancient text that isn't "common sense". If I'm wrong, provide an example. Obviously, if you can do that it's the basis for "turning" people the other way.

Most of the mas specs I have seen have components made of gold. If you dissolve the gold in a acid, then atomise and vapourise it while heating it to 10000 degrees, then feed it into a mass spec it will tell you what's there. And, of course, if you do that to a cabbage it will also be smashed down mainly to the individual elements so, for example, you won't be able to measure DDT residues in the cabbage. It's not simple; there is no single method.

You have this the wrong way round. It's the theists who will plainly believe any old nonsense they are told by the priests. Examples include " you shouls worship a man who turned water into wine- but you shouldn't drink alcohol" "it's vitally important to cut bits of your children's genitals" and " You should base the way you live your life on that of a man who married a 6 year old". No atheist is going to believe nonsense like that. Explaining that atheism frees you of the requirement to believe that sort of nonsense is one way to convince people to abandon their faith.

He's wrong.

The 3rd law isn't a problem here. Everything is the "source" of gravity. Everything attracts everything else.

in this case the experiment is to watch what happens in the sky. People who did that know about a comet hitting Jupiter. What you actually did was sit and make stuff up. That sometimes works- but not always Aristotle was famous for employing that method. He's also famous for his mistakes because of it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/armand-marie-leroi/6-things-aristotle-got-wr_b_5920840.html

"synthetic" vitamin C is actually, mainly, natural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstein_process

They did not make it crystal clear; they lied. It says a lot about a party if it can only get into power by telling a lot of lies.

No. You should check out the original from about 400 years earlier. Incidentally, (and a bit off topic- so if you plan to respond, start another thread) if you check, you find lots of things in the Bible that are actually a lot older. It's as if it was cobbled together from lots of older bits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides_paradox

That's "what they say" because it's true. Go ask a teacher.

Give or take mathematical proofs that are arguably not science it's not an issue of "science does have a lot of things that are not 100% proven, but many still believe anyway. " Science never "proves" anything- it just shows that some explanations don't work. But the difference- and it's a massive one- is that science looks at evidence. If the evidence shows that an idea is wrong, science rejects the idea. If the evidence shows that the idea is wrong, religion rejects the evidence. (just as Pymander keeps doing).

OK, if Irish Americans are descended from the Irish people, how come there are still Irish people?

If there was a valid theory, it wouldn't be magic. Magic does not exist.

What do they "guarantee" about it anyway?

Minus 6 rep in under half an hour may be some sort of record. If the OP was trying to achieve anything else, it looks like he failed.

OK, let's start with that. In spite of having been informed many times that it is a fallacy, you continue to use it and pretend that it isn't. What do you think that says to us about your grasp of logic, and your ability to learn? No we don't- because we "know" things for which there is evidence. But this isn't the thread for you to lose that argument. Go back to the other one here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-43#entry986934 and be wrong about it there.