Strange

So you have no evidence for it. None. Because I never claimed such a thing. No you don't. You have no evidence that the universe is not infinite (other than your disbelief). And again, more stuff you are making up.

The curvature is (in the simple case) static, so I don't see why that would be relevant. This site provides an explanation of the maths in fairly easy to understand language: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/

And yet they do. And questions specific to [white, Anglo-Saxon] culture.

What we perceive as the force of gravity s caused by the changing curvature of space time. This curvature causes things (light as well as objects) to move towards a mass.

As science is still making great advances, this is clearly not true.

They have very sensitive hearing, so they may be able to hear distant thunder.

Why do you think that someone with limited knowledge and math ability is going to find a better model than people with the relevant expertise? Would you expect a plumber to make a better heart surgeon than someone who has had years of training and experience?

Citation needed. What should be common knowledge? That "some youngsters can hear high speed molecules in their ears"? Perhaps you can provide some reference to support (and clarify) your claim? I think the term you are looking for is Brownian motion. And it isn't my job to provide support for your claims. That would be your job. But I did a bit of research and it looks like it is impossible for humans to hear the noise created by Brownian motion. (Cats might be able to, though. Or at least it might limit the sensitivity of their hearing. Which is interesting.) Frequently. But it is still a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence or mathematics. But I notice you didn't answer my question, just rambled on in your usual incoherent way. It is very precisely conceptualised. You should look up Cantor's work. Really? Can you provide a reference to anyone who thinks there is an infinite number of pyramids? That is even more bizarre than most of your claims.

Maybe. But the way he phrased it (and the fact that 90% of what he writes is pure made-up nonsense) suggested he meant something rather different.

Presumably you are very young, then.

There is no good evidence that is the case. IF they are sensitive to air pressure, then it is almost certainly only to changes in pressure. I can't imagine any mechanism that could allow them to be sensitive to absolute pressure.

Which one? Thor? Vishnu? Zeus? Don't be an idiot. It doesn't suit you.

In other words, it it just nonsense you have made up and nothing to do with science.

1. You seem to have mistaken a metaphor (probably invented to sell a book) about butterflies for reality. 2. Hurricanes don't cause earthquakes. Citation needed. (Or is this, as I suspect, just another thing you have made up?) "Impossibly complex" suggest the complexity is beyond quantification. How is that different from infinitely complex?

I assume you are characterising it as bad logic, because people disagree with your simplistic and naive attempt to characterise science and scientists. Your "scale" is meaningless and bears no relationship to the real world. Attempting to explain that to you is not "bad logic". Natural selection has been tested. It works. The sort of external effects you describe have been tested (see Lamark) and don't work. Unified? How many Christian churches and denominations are there? As this is a science forum, you should provide some evidence of this. That is not how science or logic work. The point about science is that the model is tested by comparing it against the real world (the one created by your god). If the model matches the real world, then it is considered a useful model. If it doesn't match the real world, then it is not a useful model. That's about it. Sounds like reasonable logic to me.

What does that mean?

So are the authors of your scriptures. You can, of course, do that. People have done that. They have used a scientific approach to study the events and people in the Bible. The result is that some things appear to be true and some are not.

I hadn't even thought of those! My reasons were: elephant is the only one that is not a predator/carnivore, the others are all "human scale" while elephants are HUGE (that overlaps with your second).

And, apart from requiring knowledge of what those animals are, your answer might depend on whether you are judging them on the taste of the meat, whether they make good pets, how well they can swim, or which ones are good or evil in your religion. (Hard to believe that some people claim there is no cultural bias in the tests.) p.s. I have absolutely no idea what the answer to that question is supposed to be. I assume it is elephant, for at least two reasons.

While iteresting, that doesn't appear to have any connection to this topic. Maybe it should be split off into its own thread.

Which is the bigger waste: accepting the universe as it is and getting on with life, or fooling yourself with dreams of a better time ahead? Plenty of people have faced death (including near death experiences like yours) and remained not just sceptical but solidly atheist. There is a saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" but it is a lie. Many people have experienced the horrors of war and decided that there can be no god. (Or certainly no sane or merciful god.)

Are you talking about fMRI? (Or was it just a lucky guess ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging

Seems like you (and they) are right. With a caveat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova#Light_curve From the same article: I assume this is taken into account in the above research.

Fascinating stuff. One detail in the NASA article seems wrong to me: I think it is the rate at which the brightness falls (the light curve) that is predictable for Type 1a supernovae, not the absolute brightness.