Raider5678

I do. Which is why I explained why I disagreed with it. In the post. Just include one line under and we're all good Except it is true, regardless if it was before 1990. So what are you arguing here? Look. We both agree, Trump doesn't give a lot(compared to what he has, which is billions of dollars), so let's just agree that we agree and move on okay? And I didn't bring him up. Someone else did. Look who I quoted.

Well, I swansnot quoted me and told me that he's a billionaire and what he's giving is basically nothing. Except, he didn't quote the line directly under what he quoted, where I said the exact same thing. Seriously, just include the second part and his whole post was agreeing with me. I also said, that I do not believe Trump gives a lot of money. Directly in the post. But he did give some, albeit VERY LITTLE. But he's convinced people he did. But I said that he convinced people he did, so immediately they're telling me I'm wrong. I'm sorry. I didn't realize good will had an expiration date. But alright. What about the third one? Your links said Trump had NEVER(exact quote. They said he didn't give a single one. Yet, here's one.) but he did. So your's are biased, just like Trumps are. Maybe, but I don't want this to be a political debate. I made a very good point concerning the actual thread, and that was the majority of my post. The trump bit didn't even have anything to do with it. So why does nobody discuss that?

Sigh. You guys keep cutting off the last part of my statement, just so you can argue with me. Here. Let me include the rest: See this? Look. right above this text ^^^^^^. Yes. Look. I said it's nothing compared to what he has. But rather then read that, you cut that part off then proceed to tell me that. I'm not looking to argue politics. This thread is not about politics. You completely ignored the majority of what my post was about. Just drop the politics and move on or else you're leading this thread off topic even farther. Did you read the bit about the church part? I suggest you should.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-flies-sick-boy/ I'm sorry. It's not money. And in case you think this site is biased, it's called many of trumps claims false. So I doubt it's biased. Now, obviously, there has been a refutement of this story. The left side is now claiming Trump actually only did it so that he could collect some money after the boy died ten years after the flight. There's no evidence that Trump got any money, but the left is claiming he most likely did this just to get some money. Although, to me, waiting 10 years for a little kid to die to get some money seems like a stretch of an accusation. http://imgur.com/a/gkjbB There's this one too. Though he's paying medical bills, so the reported decided not to include it because it wasn't donating to charity. Which I guess is fair enough? I don't know. I would have included it. http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/21154-trump-change-president-donates-10000-to-campaign-volunteer-whose-father-has-cancer And I know. This is evil. Trump paid the medical bills of one of his volunteers father's cancer treatment. Frankly, Trump has a lot of volunteer's. It's like your boss, who doesn't pay you, paying your father's medical bills when he finds out about it. Maybe you say it's evil and he only did it because this guy could advance his political party, but he did do it. And finally, Trump has given practically nothing. But saying he's given nothing is technically a lie. They used this as a media thing to get people to support trump. And it worked some what, because people don't look deeper.

A common thing I know Trump supporters bring up is that Trump donates a lot of money to charity. To which you can't say isn't true, he does. But he also happens to have billions of dollars, and giving hundreds of thousands is nothing compared to what he has. But regardless, America seems to have a lot of churches. And at my church, I know someone recently needed $7,000 to keep his house from foreclosing, and most of the people in the church gave money to help him(I gave $20), and he successfully paid what he needed to pay to keep his house. Now this is just a church of about 90 people. So I'd imagine that religious organizations play a factor. But as others have said, it isn't just one reason. But I'm almost certain things like I just described are one of them.

Actually, anything above 5 billion years, and the sun would be a red giant and most likely consume Earth. Wait. Stop. I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER POSSIBILITIES! But the most likely one, is that earth is consumed. I'm not turning this into a debate about what will happen to earth. In the event that earth is consumed, no life will form. So you have a 5 billion year window if life were to die off right now. All life. Including bacteria. If it happens every 50 billion years, then the likely hood of life happening ever again on earth is really slim. I still stand on the idea that abiogenesis never happened. Just letting you know. But ignoring that for now. I would frankly agree with you, that life happening in 5 billion years is something I would consider rare. Given the idea that a random organism managing to show up would probably die off unless it just happened to have the right conditions. Even if those conditions were that it only needed one carbon atom a day to survive. Abiogenesis suggests the chemicals and other things created the life form. Doesn't mean that that life form will form directly ready to live in the environment it's created in. The chemicals, I'd assume, would be pretty random on what they create so I doubt they'll specifically create a single celled organism with DNA adapted to it's environment. Unless I'm completely wrong and it does create it based on it's environment. I don't really know. And frankly nobody does. Which lowers the rate of life showing up to extremely small chances. Unless, it's happened often(1 million years maybe?) except the organism was rarely adapted to it's environment. Abiogenesis, is a theory that's extremely hard to test. All we know, is that life showed up. Studying Abiogenesis and the likely hood of it happening, is hard to do.

High school students have it down pat. They calculated the probabilities with some rough estimates and immediately applied it to a real life situation. They flip a coin. Heads, they go to sleep. Tails, they browse the internet. Stands on edge, they study.

Nothing. Throughout the thread, her symptoms have changed and flipped around and continued to become different disorders and then revert back to a non-existent one. She is not seeing green as yellow. Trust me. If you grew up, and learned that yellow was called purple, you'd call it purple right? It's yellow, but you wouldn't know you had it wrong. Because you learned to call it purple. Take three people, and they all see the color blue as something different. One see's red, one see's purple, one sees green. But every single one of them learned to call it blue, so they do. And nobody will ever be able to tell they see something different. Because, this is likely the case throughout the world. Everyone seeing different colors, but nobody knowing what others see. You can't describe color to a blind person who was blind from birth. Like wise, you can't explain the difference of green and yellow to someone who's always seen them flipped. The only possible explanation I can find, is if she grew up speaking a different language, and then learned English later in life, and got the colors mixed up. But if that isn't the case, either she's insane or she's pulling your leg. That's just the way it is. You can deny it, but it's true. She does not have any disorder. Nothing is wrong with her. On the other hand, if it is a game of some sort, play along and figure out what she wants. She might have a thing for you and likes the attention.

Considering the other guy who actually came up with the theorem had this first......

Dude, I wasn't pressuring nothing. You made a statement that the only reason I thought they looked weird was because I was circumcised. I agreed. But I then wondered what females thought on the basis that they don't have them. So I asked.

Actually, most of their experience was only in sex ed. So the only norm they know are the two pictures.

It's an extremely small one, so yes. But is it that my school doesn't count or is that it's too small?

Actually, after an anonymous survey to girls, I found the majority 26/28 think a uncircumcised penis looks weirder. That being said, I also had to ask another question, 24/28 think both look weird on some level.

Particularly nice in my opinion. Having a 3 day weekend every week is nice.

I believe, he's trying to advocate for higher pay with less hours on the basis that "I'll be happier, less stressed, and healthier"

Class.

Yes. I teach Sunday school. Keeping 15 kids in check is hard enough.

I question a lot of things and generally don't agree with everybody on the forum, especially not all the senior residents. They'll attest to this. But when presented with evidence I can't argue against, or having had proved me wrong, I have no hard feelings about backing down. I have a weird sense of what I accept as hard evidence and not, but I do back down when I realize I'm wrong. Either way, I have never had a thread blocked, nor have I ever gotten a warning. And I have opened a number of controversial threads. Especially my first few ones. The key is simple. When proven wrong, admit that you are wrong. You won't get banned for protesting against evidence, but give a reason for why you're protesting it. For example, if you don't trust the source say "I don't agree with that because they say light is the fastest thing in the universe, I don't see how that's possible." Someone will reply explaining why light is the fastest thing in the universe, and you can learn from that. On top of that, you no longer have a quarrel with the evidence, therefore, you know you're proven wrong. Which means it's time to admit such, and move on. When you're proven wrong, you learn. It's not something bad. Although there is one particular senior member who I dislike because when you do admit you're wrong he goes "Wait a second. At first you said this, now you're admitting you made a mistake. What's up with that? How can we trust anything you say?" And I'm sure there's members you dislike. But just because I dislike him doesn't mean I dismiss everything he says if he disagree's. He's still far more intelligent then I am. Another thing you have to understand, is that science is science. You can disagree, but if they have evidence that you're wrong, they won't believe you. And often, they have evidence that proves you wrong. In a good portion of your threads, I noticed a lot that it wasn't so much that you provided no evidence, its that evidence actually contradicted what you said. Now, people like you who come up with outlandish theories are usually smarter then the general populace. You have a huge capacity to learn, if you'll only accept that you might not be the smartest person there. I wish you luck, I truly do. It's so easy to be the smartest person you know in person, but having your ego submit to knowledge is hard. But it will definitely result in you becoming multitudes more intelligent.

Add mass. Maybe throw in an asteroid or two. That would add mass.

No, my over all position did not change. I'd still rather Trump then the other cannidates. But, I realized I was misinformed about the new information.

Other then increase the gravity of an object by increasing it's mass or energy, no.

For the most part, I realized I was misinformed. My bad. But, they've been testing weapons. Their last one was in April, not September last year. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/15/asia/north-korea-missile-test/ There. Now we're both a little better informed.