Strange

You can take into account as many other masses as you want. The calculations can get quite lengthy, but there is no reason why you can't work out exactly how much the Sun, the Moon, Mount Everest and the car outside your house add together to have an effect on you.

Not all of them. And even those who did believe in [a] god, didn't necessarily believe in your, nor in Jesus. And what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

I spent one sentence pointing out that you can look up the definition yourself. Why should I copy and paste it from a dictionary for you? Don't be so lazy. The rest of that post (which was actually posted much later) was expanding on the relationship between science and philosophy (the original topic, before you started obsessing about a definition you can find in a dictionary).

What is wrong with the definitions and references you have been given? Why do we have to give you a definition you can look up in any dictionary? What charges? Against whom?

I look forward to seeing your mathematics.

My guess is coincidence. But if you can show a geometric relationship, that would be fascinating.

Several people have noted that your references are not always helpful. It does not seem reasonable to blame others when you could, very easily, provide a relevant link. My first result was an article about Nia Long winning an award (which could be seen as slightly ironic).

And as much of the Bible is taken rom those sources, they could have used that information.

It was because, at the time (1998), they did not have an alternative method. So they wrote a computer program based on a mathematical function to find the minimum value. Since then, a formal mathematical proof has been developed (2015). I'm not quite sure what the point of this is: they did not start from a cartoon, they started from a mathematical description of the problem (a function), which was used to write a program. This is the reverse of your problem (you have an animation that produces a series of numbers but no function describing them). All of which is totally off topic for the thread. So we had better leave it there.

I don't understand. Either a genetic grouping of interest is a race or we need an alternative name for that grouping. You say these groupings are not races, therefore "population" seems like a good choice. (We could go with your other suggestion of "thing" but it may be too late.)

Can you explain the logic behind that statement? Or do you mean that now you would call lactose tolerance a race?

I did. I used the quote function to comment on what you said (where you reintroduced the topic).

I'm sorry you failed to understand. I thought it would be obvious to someone of your outstanding intellectual capacities. The reason that "population" is a more useful concept is that it allows us to look at a wider range of traits such as lactose tolerance (of different types), fur colour, ear size, etc. It would not, as you say, make any sense to describe these groupings as "races" but any such population can be studied to understand their ancestry, how those traits coexist with others, how they may affect susceptibility to disease or effectiveness of treatments, and even things like intelligence and educational achievement (1). Is that clearer? (1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4210287/

As matter and antimatter are identical, there must be an equal number of protons on the left as there are anti-protons on the right. Unless, you have carefully managed the numbers to come up with a particular result. (i.e. numerology) That means that every type of particle has an antiparticle, not that every instance of a particle has a corresponding antiparticle. As swansont says, that is not possible because dark matter and antimatter have different properties. You can't just wish that away by invoking an imaginary magic field. And, if you were correct about every proton having an anti-proton, then dark matter would make up 50% of the matter.

They don't. So the rest of the post is moot.

You think God can't do fractions? But he is omnipotent! "This opening was round, and with its basework it measured a cubit and a half." 1 Kings 7:31 (Among many others.)

Perhaps you could be more specific about what you think is wrong. Philosophers of science have spent a lot of time and effort on this subject, so feel free to reference some of their work in your answer. As a starting point, where do you think the problem lies in the following sequence: 1. Observe 2. Formulate a hypothesis (a possible explanation) and create a model 3. Test and refine that model by further observations and measurements 4. Publish your results for others to tear apart 5. Go to 1. Note that step 3 avoids the "it looks like it to me so it must be true" trap that you and Creationists love to fall into.

If you mean the "Report" link at the bottom of each post, that only goes to the moderators not the person who made the post.

Which implies that "And a kingdom [unity] divided against itself will not stand" cannot be true. That is what happens when you test an idea against reality; you find out if it works or not.

This is EXACTLY the argument used by Creationists. And just as wrong.

And that, again, is why "population" is a more useful concept than "race". You have again explained very well why people have moved away from an outdated term to a more useful one.

I didn't make it up (see post 112): "The fine-scale genetic structure of the British population", Leslie, S. et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14230 (18 March 2015). http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html So you are claiming that lactose tolerance doesn't have a genetic basis? And those who are lactose tolerance didn't get it from their ancestors? And that is exactly why population is a better word. Who cares. That is an example of the etymological fallacy. So you agree that lactose tolerant and intolerant populations are different races? (I thought you said they weren't?) I have explained the reasons. They seem eminently sensible to me. Why do you keep making silly comments about Marxism?

That's OK. I'm sure you can explain yourself if you take a deep breath and try again.

It isn't a euphemism. It is just a better word. This happens quite regularly. For example, in a field I am more familiar with, we changed form talking about electron orbits to orbitals. I'm fairly sure that is because it is a better term, than a Marxist conspiracy. It is more like talking about "vehicles" when drafting a policy that applies to cars, trucks, and bicycles. So, by your definition, the two (indistinguishable) groups of people who live on the north and south coasts of Wales are different races. And people who are lactose tolerant are a different race from those who are lactose intolerant? (Actually, that is a bit of a simplification as there are several different "races" of lactose tolerant people). That sounds more likely to confuse people. I suspect (based on the attitudes you display here) you prefer "race" because it is provocative and divisive.

And why shouldn't it? It seems barely rational to compare the lifetime of the universe to a washing machine. Maybe the lifetime of the universe is a trillion, trillion years and it is still in its initial warranty period. You are making an argument from incredulity. And your argument is ludicrous. Then we can dismiss it as baseless. And pointless.