zapatos

Then I don't understand the purpose of your "so eh" comment.

So you think a bunch of religious people are going to suddenly appear and defend the concept of a soul just because we are on the religion side?

It means quit being obtuse.

Science does not support the concept of a religiously based soul. This forum is populated by people of science. Therefore you will not find many people here to defend the concept of a soul. That should be obvious.

This is a science forum primarily for discussions regarding science and other topics of interest. You are treating this place like a chatroom for adolescent boys. You have been given a lot of leeway as you are new here, but I'm afraid if you don't get in the swing of things, you won't be long for this site.

You do know you are on a science forum, right?

The bio printer.

We cannot prove you exist. We cannot "make" you believe anything, We can only provide evidence.

What makes you think your life will be enjoyable forever? Are you enjoying it now? Hanging out with your friends? What if you are poor, alone, and disease ridden for the next 100,000 years, and then the REALLY bad times start?

Volunteer somewhere. Anywhere. You will then have something in common with others. Then talk to them.

Perhaps if you shared your thoughts on the subject it could spur some discussion.

1. Go back and read the posts you made that received multiple neg reps. 2. Don't be that person.

Through the wonders of technology, we even know WHO the first people were to get a soul. They were a couple of gentlemen named Sam and Dave, and their story ties directly back to the bible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Man_(song)

I guess officially it was 1966. https://whatscookingamerica.net/History/ChitlinsHistory.htm

Did he change your mind about anything?

Why do you do this? Is it so hard to acknowledge that someone other than you can have a valid point? All Sensei did was point out a potential problem with your description of global warming. It wasn't a personal attack.

I thought Sensei did an excellent job of explaining why it did.

The problem with your approach is that you are doing more than just asking questions. You are (in this case) trying to tie photons to the expansion of the universe without having any foundation for doing so. When someone tells you why that won't work, you then pull some other factoid out of your hat and say "well, what if I throw in this random piece of information rather than my previous piece of information? Would THAT make my conjecture right?" Rather than making a conjecture and then trying to learn some physics that would allow it, you might be better off learning some physics first and THEN coming up with a conjecture based on those physical principles. That would allow an easier back and forth as you refine your knowledge of the subject.

Give me a break.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

It will probably have little impact as one grade in one class is such a small part of what determines whether or not you are accepted into a college.

This is not an answer to your direct question, but a couple of my own. What factors have you looked at in determining the change of average delivery time? Have the average distances to customer changed? Have the average speed limits changed? Are there changes to what is done while delivering (e.g. do drivers now fill their own gas tanks while out on deliveries?) Has traffic increased? Are deliveries made during lunch time? Are orders larger, possibly requiring longer times to get things off the truck? Any changes to the time it takes customers to accept orders? In general, I'm not sure the answer to the ultimate question (why aren't you as fast as me?) can be found with the math problem you have proposed.

Again, you can infer that she did that, and maybe it is true, but it was not clearly stated. She said "I was educated about tropes, I don't want to offend anyone, I am sorry". A perfect example of how to apologize without actually admitting guilt. It looked to me like she apologized because she was pressured to do so. Saying she was taught about anti-Semitic tropes could have been a way to make her apology more palatable to others. The fact that she ended her apology with a reiteration of her concern but in softer tones makes me think she is sorry about nothing but getting called out. To me the apology seemed 'well crafted' more than a sincere belief she did something wrong. I agree that she knew what she was doing. I think the difference in our opinions is that you feel she was slurring Jews, and I feel she was probably just criticizing both the use of money by this group to influence politicians, and politicians who are influenced by money. Her history you outlined above could even be reasonably used to support my position that she was NOT apologizing for her statement (if she really is anti-semitic, did she really just have an epiphany about her bad behavior?), but was instead apologizing to smooth troubled waters. But as I said before, I may be wrong about her words, as subtle attacks on Jews is not as clear to me as subtle attacks on some other groups.

Why else would she bring what up? The apology? People apologize every day for things they didn't (or think they didn't) do. Some do it to keep the peace. Some do it because they are pressured to do so. Then there is the famous non-apology apology. I think hers resembles all three. She said "anti-semitism is real", and she said she is sorry. She did not say "my comment was anti-semitic and I'm sorry". I suspect, given her history, that she didn't suddenly change her mind about Israel and Israeli supporters in Congress. I don't see it, but that may be my lack of exposure. I have in the past been rather ignorant about what women and minorities have to put up with. It looked to me like she was saying people are unduly influenced by money. If she'd said it about people taking gun money or oil money I don't think anyone would have batted an eye. But because it is related to Israel a lot of people immediately took issue. I attribute "all about the benjamins" to her age. But similarly to my position on the 'stupid woman' thread, I feel it is a good idea to avoid certain language if you know people might be offended by it.