John Cuthber

So the reason it's created by a perfect God is that it's full of imperfections. Do you actually think that makes sense? Anyway, according to scripture God proclaimed His own stupidity by including the serpent in the garden of Eden.

And yet, in the real world the year is something like 365.259636 times longer than the day. That's natural- and it's not even constant. The earth isn't spinning as fast as it used to. Nature is just plain awkward in this case (and many others). The orbital period of the moon also isn't either an exact number of days, nor a simple fraction of the year.

It isn't even possible to tell if the question has a meaning since there's a debate about whether or not "Christ" existed. If he did (that's a big if) then the only records of what he might have thought are old books written (and re-written) many years after the alleged event by people who had their own clear agenda. And that's probably why the various tales don't agree with eachother. That's been followed up by a determined plan to reinterpret the books because they simply aren't very nice. These days, no book that tells you where to get your slaves and how to treat them can be taken seriously as a guide to morality. And, once you realise that it's not being used as a moral guide, and it's not a history book,what's left? Certainly nothing reliable so, as I said, there's no way to know the answer to your question. Feel free to make up an answer- plenty of people have done it before and plenty will do it again.

I assumed you had tied the end of the string to a rock. The rock is the creator of the universe.

OK, for a start, no, it's not. I live on a fairly steep hill.But that's irrelevant anyway. What you said was "Tell me, how do you personally know about the nature of the stars?" And you said it in direct response to me saying "Yet another example of the logical fallacy known as argument from personal incredulity. Do you realise that you are basing your claims on something that is known to be invalid?" The way you said it implies that it's a rebuttal of some sort- that my point would only be valid if I somehow knew about the stars. Well, that's simply wrong too. The best interpretation for you saying "Tell me, how do you personally know about the nature of the stars?" is that it's just some irrelevant words you typed. Do you think that makes you look any less foolish than the clearly illogical arguments you have put forward in earlier posts? BTW I'm not implying that you are a fool. I'm stating outright that your posts make you look foolish.

Because the topic is Islam vs Christianity. (though I grant you, it's a lousy title).

https://vimeo.com/80162775 And it doesn't matter that he didn't know the cause. There was a cause and it was what came to be known as Brownian motion.

I never said that I did, so that's a straw man argument which is another logical fallacy. Are you aware that trying to support your argument on flawed logic makes you look foolish?

Most people know that living on burgers is bad for you. That information is already disseminated. They eat them anyway, partly because they see them as cheap, partly because there are no shops nearby that sell better food, partly because whatever...

For the most part, I think they need education more than they need leaders (and I'm not sure about the validity of some of your points)

I wrote it to reiterate my point that the only reason that Brownian motion is still under discussion is that you don't understand it. There is not, for example, a meaning to the phrase "a type of Brownian Motion". Motion is Brownian motion, or it isn't. (And, in this case, it's not),

Science can explain exactly the same things whether there's a God or not. However "Goddidit" doesn't explain anything.

Well, at least I can stop wasting time on it unless someone who doesn't understand it keeps banging on about it.

This phrase "Primarily, he brought the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. " does not make sense. Not that it matters much because your whole post was off topic.

Yet another example of the logical fallacy known as argument from personal incredulity. Do you realise that you are basing your claims on something that is known to be invalid?

I am, because I can do arithmetic. There's this thing called science; you might have heard of it. It's a really neat trick for finding out how things work- well, strictly it's a way of finding out how they don't work, but that's nearly as good. So, for example, someone might come up with the idea that Brownian motion is responsible for the movement if a bit of foil in a glass bowl. Using science I can calculate how big the movements should be if they were driven by Brownian motion. And the answer is tiny- far too small to see. So I can rule out Brownian motion as a mechanism. It doesn't tell me what is driving the foil, but it tells me that I can stop wasting time on Brownian motion. Well, at least i can stop wasting time on it unless someone who doesn't understand it keeps banging on about it.

No.

We did investigate it. It's bollocks The video is junk Did you think you have a point?

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Why bother?

Or maybe this force only works when nobody is watching.

And the deadlock is still based on one side lying.

They use a corner cube reflector for lidar. It's better in a number of ways . But I'm talking about this sort of thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication#History The bigger the satellite the more signal hits it (at which point it probably does act pretty much like a small source and so the 1/r^2 law applies) and the better chance there is of the reflected signal being observable when it gets back to you.

How much effort are you going to put into this before you realise you have been fooling yourself? Incidentally, I don't think a university will take you seriously.

How big would a satellite need to be for us to be able to use straightforward radar to measure it's altitude? We can check the distance to the moon, and most artificial satellites are a lot nearer- but a lot smaller.