zapatos

No one claimed everything just popped into existence. The conversation was about the expansion of the universe, not the origin of the universe. Seriously, you should either try to learn what people are telling you, or go learn some science on your own and THEN come here to discuss it. As it is you are simply a train wreck.

Before joining a science forum and making claims you should at least do a simple Google search. Even my grandkids know that gravity is an attractive force.

Gravity is not causing expansion or increasing speed of expansion. It is not speculation. It is based on observation.

Well, maybe none of the meanings you've explored... https://hum.byu.edu/difference-between-faith-and-belief

Why are you here? You already have all the beliefs you want and already know that any contradiction to what you believe is wrong. So other than annoying the people here what could you possibly hope to achieve?

It was your suggestion that the earth orbits around a black hole that threw me. ("Black holes contain mass and energy, the Earth is in orbit around one") https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_orbit Sorry but I really thought that this was common knowledge.

Well, that's what you say now. It isn't what you said that prompted iNow's request for more information. Wouldn't it have been easier to say "Upon further consideration I'm modifying my position on how to apply litter penalties" instead of hoping no one would notice when you moved the goalposts?

"One" what? A black hole?

🤣

Sorry I missed it, but what is the "Universal enigma" you are talking about?

I get so tired of people who blame the poor for their lot in life. If only they went to college and earned more money they would be the better kind of person who quickly picks up trash, instead of letting it rust on the ground along with every other single person in the neighborhood, none of whom give a shit.

You've been holding that in for so long it must be a tremendous release to finally say it out loud! Feel better now that you've quit pretending you are actually interested in what the science says?

No, your heart is in your chest.

So you don't agree with your opening post?!?! Seems like you are scratching something else. What new evolved homo sapiens are you talking about? No. Check your dictionary for the meaning of those words. Yes.

How do you suppose slime molds came up with an "end goal". And what is its end goal? Does evolution simply stop once the end goal is met? What evidence do you have? Well, based on your first two lines, there is no "parent" of intelligence. There is a parent of an offspring who inherited the intelligence.

Is there a replacement term, or is the 'subconscious' no longer considered a valid concept?

Psychology does. Not sure that would be considered "science".

So you are saying I would not think this is a big deal if only I better knew ballot access requirements. I would counter that you are ignoring the candidate that this issue is about. Similarly a little old lady with advanced cancer would not be as big a deal as advanced cancer in a person who has the potential in the future to impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Context matters. Again, it is a bit shocking that you cannot see that.

So if while reviewing the Colorado SC decision in the ballot case, the US Supreme Court rules that the 14th Amendment is not relevant to the particular set of facts regarding Trump's actions, and that the Colorado SC made a mistake, isn't that deciding an issue of fact? That Trump DID NOT engage in an insurrection as described in the Constitution?

You seem to be saying that "holding a trial" is the same as "adjudicate". I don't think that is correct, per my previous link to Wikipedia: SCOTUS does indeed resolve disputes and give formal judgements in court proceedings.

Perhaps I don't understand the term well. This from Wikipedia makes it sound like SCOTUS adjudicates. That is, they will make a formal judgement about whether or not he violated the 14h Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjudication On a side note, I thought the Supreme Court acted as trial judges when litigation begins at the Supreme Court level. Yes, I didn't say they had to be convicted of an insurrection. I said in the case of being too young or not a natural born citizen, there had to be some legally recognized documentation (or lack thereof) to support denying someone public office. A birth certificate indicating the candidate is too young for example.

Yes, until SCOTUS adjudicates one way or the other. Until then it is simply opinion by people who don't have the final say. If you are declaring someone is under 35 or not a natural born citizen, presumably it is because of the existence of legally recognized documentation. If you have no such documentation, it is "alleged".

Trump is the leading Republican candidate for President and an ex-president himself. His name is being removed for (alleged) violation of the Constitution regarding insurrection. He has 90 something criminal charges outstanding. He is trying to win the presidency in part to shut down cases that may send him to jail. This is unprecedented. Even my young grandkids realize this is a big deal.

So why does that make it "not a big deal"? Lots of things are a big deal even if they've happened to a lot of people already. Cancer for example.

How did you get that ⬇️ from this ⬆️?