zapatos

Any good Catholic knows that only when the pope speaks Ex Cathedra is his word infallible. Anything else is an opinion. I'm surprised you didn't know that. The Catholic Church existed prior to Christ? Hate to bother you but a citation would really help me out with that claim. So if the Church doesn't have a definite interpretation of the talking snake, then why did you say it shouldn't be taken literally?

Francis.

If one is cherry picking themselves, they shouldn't refer to 'cherry picking' by others as the use of an illogical argument. At least not if they want to be taken seriously. You realize the church is made up of people just like you, right? They are not the word of God. Their interpretation is no more valid than yours. Can you provide a citation that shows where the church actually interprets a talking snake and 6 day creation as figurative? I've seen members of the church argue both ways. Who is the authority I should believe.

So then we still to believe that the sun orbits the earth?

So what is your criteria for deciding what is literal and what is not? Saying something took six days is meant to be figurative, but saying a virgin birth is meant to be literal? Sounds like you are cherry picking to meet your needs.

They would be stupid for... admitting to a mistake? And you wonder why people think religion is indeed stupid.

Agreed. They don't sound literal at all. And neither do virgin birth, rising from the dead, the Holy Trinity, turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, or heaven and hell. Do you also agree those were not completely literal?

The only person who can give you some type of reasoning why it is continuing is a doctor after an examination. Please see a doctor as soon as you can.

Can you show me where he claimed that?

No, you won't. If we can speed it up, why do you think we can't slow it down? Please be specific on this issues you find insurmountable. Exactly who do you think is trying to end hurricanes? No. That is why we do more than rant and yell about misconceptions on internet forums. I'm afraid he won't be of much help with this issue.

I would have listed consensus as useful rather than a 'big problem'. It keeps people from wasting time and talent and money on theories that are not useful. In my experience science never thinks it has found the final answer and can quit examining. Science ALWAYS reviews, looking for better understanding. I think you've been looking in the wrong place. I've never seen any scientist say "Ah, we've finally found the "truth"". Science seeks an understanding of how the universe behaves. It is philosophers and lawyers who look for the truth.

I think mistermack can recognize the difference.

"Tolerant" does not mean accepting unreasonable arguments.

At the beginning of the Big Bang, laws of physics existed. While not all of the details are understood, these laws are sufficient for the formation of all you see, including the change from inanimate to animate matter. If you have enough time and interest you can research what we know about the entire process. What isn't known is why the laws of physics exist, or why they exist as they do. Some people like to believe they must have had a creator. There seems to be no way to prove a creator, so science typically stays away from that question. The first organisms did not come from 'nothing', they came from, and resort back to, the chemicals you see around you. It is just that if joined in a certain manner, they exhibit properties we categorize as 'life'.

Yet here you are, a fly in the ointment. Might I suggest that if you find these discussions pointless, inane, boring, and not your cup of tea, that you avoid these types of discussions? That is how most people deal with those things they dislike.

Right. And in fact, this law may be very reasonable and loved by almost everyone. I don't suspect it was written to ensure that minors who are victims of crime are required to pay the criminal money for 18 years.

I suspect that every jurisdiction in the world has laws that are outdated or used in a way not intended. It would be shocking if there were NOT any laws that were ludicrous.

It would help neophytes like me if you would be a little more careful when making statements that sound like accepted theory. There are more people involved in these threads than just those conversing. Thanks.

I am not one of those who has a good grip on entanglement. Loved reading your explanation as it was extremely helpful. And in praise of the rep system, it was all the positive rep on that post that made me stop to read it carefully.

I apologize on behalf of Science that Dark Matter is not yet fully understood. By all means, feel free to not treat us seriously until we rectify this egregious situation. You would think that by now we would have everything figured out. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Why didn't you look at my warning about what the device that goes "pop" did to that kid?

Here is my warning on sparklers...

Agreed. I've made "bombs" with dry ice, water and a soda bottle; carbide, water and a milk jug; sparklers, duct tape, and a match. Cost me about $1 and two minutes of my time. My kids told me how to make the sparkler bomb.

I understand your views, but I am not so easily fooled by the "message" you are pedaling.

You are doing a great job of defending offensive and unscientific views by waving your hands and hoping people look the other way.