Have you considered that you could be wrong?
The difference between you and me?
Yes, where you pretend you are right, even when you admit you don't know, you still claim that you must be right.
Meanwhile, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong, when someone can show I am, and I have made plenty of mistakes.
But what I do know is that the option I came from has constant nagging questions that don't add up.
i.e. you are certain that you are not wrong.
You do not even consider it as a possibility.
I gave this fairy tale a second look, and realized that it was total crap.
Yet you are yet to present a single valid reason why.
Instead you just keep repeating the same refuted lies and then fleeing from them.
All with the idea that you couldn't possibly be wrong about it.
Ummm okay, light rays in real life (such as from a lightbulb or flashlight or candle, or anything really) totally are completely separated from each other, and not (as is actually observed by all of these things) either a ray, cone, or sphere of light waves in close formation.
Firstly, you are effectively admitting your prior claims are pure BS, as you showing light in a close formation in contrast to clearly separated light rays. Yet your attempt at justifying your BS before was pretend light magically comes out in rays and you have a direct ray and then the one next to it would be off at such a large angle it would miss Earth.
But at the same time you fail to understand how you can represent a part of the light from a continuous region as lines.
That is a simple way to understand shadows.
But apparently that is too advanced for you.
Something shaped like the sun is, is one of two things:
1. A sphere, in which case its light should be in a circular radius around the center.
i.ei just what the RE model has and directly against what you pretended without justification.
2. A spotlight.
HOW?
So pretty pictures where the sun scatters to be at just the right angle to be underneath something? That's a kid's picture.
Not scattering, travelling directly from the source to the object.
- Replicated food is shit. Even if you could make such a thing (against the conservation of matter, unless you have some kind of protoplasm goo as starter), everything you made would basically taste the same.
If you don't understand something, it is far better for you to remain silent about it and have people wonder if you are an idiot, than to speak and confirm their suspicions.
Firstly, it is NOT a violation of conservation of matter. Instead it is changing matter into other matter. e.g. it takes waste and turns it into food.
But more importantly, why should that make everything taste the same?
It should be repeatable such that if you had it construct a particular item according to a particular model it should be able to produce an identical one which tastes the same, but you should also be able to have it make other things which taste different.
- Without money, there is no incentive.
Just because you are desperate for and only motivated by money doesn't mean everyone is.
The existence of open source software shows that is not the case.
- Religion isn't something we outgrow.
It certainly seems to be, with more advanced and more civilised societies being less religious.
Religion was made as a tool to control primitive people and to pretend to have an explanation for what was unknown.
It's something that people who don't have permanent autism as a result of vaccinations understand is how we make sense of this world.
i.e. for primitive people, that don't like an answer of "we don't know" and instead would prefer to have pure BS made up for them to pretend to have an answer, even if it is entirely wrong.