Strange

Then why are Christians just as likely to die of malaria or in an earthquake?

I didn't challenge John because he's referencing well known physics that is obviously correct. On the other hand you aren't able to justify your claim that this note by Einstein is relevant.

Why not just answer the question? Or admit you can't...

Or, at least, the allegations are genuine even if he is not guilty. (Although he is such an obnoxious, arrogant, hypocrite, I would not be in the least bit surprised if he were guilty.)

Please provide specific examples of science that is based on lies. (Otherwise, I will have to assume that you are lying. Which is sadly very common amongst preachers like you.)

So why does your god kill so many harmless and defenceless infants? (who have never done any of these things?)

Obviously not, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question. What do you mean by "a collision with other genetic material"? You mean the genome stays the same unless it changes. Err.... yeah.

What do you mean by "three dimensional coding"? Some genes may be lost. On the other hand, they may be gained, transposed or changed.

That is not an example of cherry picking. It is an example of you citing irrelevant facts (presumably in order to further demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about). In other words, as this is the Speculations forum and it is up to you to show, in suitable mathematical detail, that the note about pendulum clocks is relevant to the measurement of G. After all, the paper it comes from does not mention gravity at all. (And you can't claim "well Einstein said it so it must be relevant"). You could start with the equation for the period of a pendulum and work from there.

How is this incoherent stream of consciousness drivel an answer to anything you have been asked? It seems to indicate serious brain damage rather than attempt at intelligent discussion.

So why does your god kill so many harmless and defenceless infants?

I'll drink to that.

So why does your god kill so many harmless and defenceless infants? How about answering the question instead of writing meaningless platitudes.

Religion is definitely a "box". It tells you what to think (and what not to think). Science is the complete opposite. It is a voyage of discovery: finding out about the world based on evidence and reason, not wishful thinking and delusions. Science forces you out of the boxes of preconceptions, common sense and myth.

Then he needs to show that: 1. There has been an an increase in the rate of grey hair in many societies. 2. That this is independent of age (i.e. not just because people are living longer) 3. That there has a been a corresponding increase in caffeine intake in the same societies over the same time. 4. That there is a causal link between 1 and 3, not just a correlation. This could be a very interesting research project. But until it is completed, I would be tempted to say "meh".

How do you know that is the case? He is too much of a coward to appear in court and defend himself. Maybe that is because he is guilty?

So why does your god kill so many infants?

There is always a future for you in agriculture with all this experience of cherry picking ...

Presumably the infants are being punished because the adults have failed to find a cure for malaria.

Hmmm... Wouldn't the force on both sides of your head be the same? Otherwise your head would move sideways! Or have I misunderstood which force we are talking about?

Science does that all the time. It did it when it was realised that time and space were not absolute. (It never had to admit it was wrong about the aether, because there was never any evidence for it in the first place; it was just an naive and unjustified assumption.)

Sorry, I can't give any respect to a being with that level of arrogance and self-absorption. Sounds a bit like Trump... How do you know that? It seems far more likely to be the words of many men, over many thousands of years. (That have then been selected, edited, translated, re-interpreteed, re-selected, re-edited, translated again, and now re-interpreted. A good game of Chinese whispers, maybe. But the word of a god/goddess? Nah.

Although they may add to genetic diversity and hence be selected for (or against) if the environment changes in future.

A slightly different perspective: inany population there will be variation - think of your friends, so rare taller and some shorter, some have blue eyes, and some brown, etc. (In the case of the ancestors of whales some would have had more fully developed legs and some less so.) In all these variations, some may be advantageous (in some circumstances) and some disadvantageous (in some circumstances). The traits that are advantageous will tend to help their owners survive and reproduce. They will therefore become more common. (The traits that are disadvantageous will tend to become less frequent for the same reason.) In the case of ncestors of whales, presumably those with less developed legs were faster in the water which helped them feed, survive, reproduce... Repeat over multiple generations (with new variations in each generation). Where does mutation come into this? It is one source of variation (that feeds selection and hence drives evolution) in the population.

We don't currently have a theory of quantum gravity so it never stops (in principle - as Mordred says, it ceases to have any practical effect st some point).