My post:

-------------------------------------------
Here is one scientific definition of God – yanniru – March 21, 2003 18:29 UTC

http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/25476.shtml

Mike has never proposed anything like this or anything close to a scientific definition of God.

Honesty is as foreign to Mike as physics
---------------------------------------------

Mike's response:
----------------------------------------------
It was a really poor one, not scientific, just jargon and b.s. – quiet – March 22, 2003 – 08:15 UTC

Sorry Yanniru. I think you are capable of
offering good thoughts. You just don't do it
very often because you have too much fun spamming.
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/25499.shtml

----------------------------------------------

I think these posts speak for themselves. I had defined god as all the mass in the world. This is consistent with the scientific book "The GOD Particle" which claims that the Higgs particle is god like because it is responsible for making all the mass in the universe.

As I said in the linked post, this is not the only possible definition of god, but it is a scientific one.

Mike has displayed his lack of scientific training over and over again on this forum. That is not a problem. Anyone is welcome to post here. But Mike continues to insult the posters here who know more science than he does. As a result most of them have left.

I would but I still need more material for my book on him.

It is unfortunate that there are so many Mike Pearsons in the world. The most prominent one is a famous football player. Search for Mike Peersom and see how many there are. But none of them seem to be our very own Mike Fearson. You would think that at least some of his posts here would show. Mine do. But for some reason his do not. I wonder what that means?