By definition supernatural miracles cannot be explained by science. That’s like their entire point.

You not understanding the scientific explanations for events and history is not the same as the only explanation for those events being your god.

There was not a world-wide flood that killed all creatures except a few dozen animals and a couple humans on a boat.

The earth is more than a few thousand years old.

Life as it exists today evolved over billions of years as a result of natural selection. It was not created over the course of a week.

A young man was not resurrected after being crucified.

Angels did not destroy Sodom with fiery meteors from heaven, and no woman was turned into a pillar of salt by an omnipotent (and benevolent!) god.

A young man did not cure leprosy, create bread and wine from nothing or transmute water into wine, walk on water, heal the blind, or otherwise use magic to cure illnesses.

I can go on.

Btw claiming that there are no objective morals is not the same claim as “Christianity objectively determines morality.” My claim is about whether an entire class of things - morals - are objectively determinable. Yours is that they are objectively determined by a specific book.

That’s the third variable effect in action. Sunscreen as a product does not cause cancer, but the TikTok and Instagram morons convincing people it does (who just so happen to sell products that actually protect you, don’t ya know) absolutely do harm your health.

Except true science can and very often does contradict religious belief. What face value reason Galileo was punished for is immaterial to the correctness of his claims. Whether the earth is the “moral center” of the universe is both unprovable and unproven. Maybe there’s another earth out there that is more moral than ours. Maybe the Bible is true, but was planted here by aliens from the true moral center of the universe and all the references in the Bible are about them, not us.

There is no such thing as religious truth. Religion cannot make truth claims about things like morality because there are no truths about morality - it is necessarily subjective.

That website is making a bunch of demonstrably false claims about geocentrism that are not worth the time to debunk. The earth isn’t even the center of the solar system, much less the universe.

What an odd and unnecessarily hostile response to horse armor discussions, full of rebuttals to things I didn’t say. If you’re looking for a meaningless fight you didn’t find one.

Yes but they are quite different. For starters, the horse armor was purely cosmetic. Second, Oblivion was the game that really made it normal and mainstream. Oblivion was far more popular than NWN and almost any other fantasy game of that era that I can remember. It certainly commanded a huge audience as the successor to Morrowind, and a technological breakthrough in terms of look, polish, mechanics, and scale. I think it was really the first of the AAA first person fantasy genre, and for them to normalize cosmetic only DLC was different.

So far that hasn’t really been tested in court, and when it has (Trump v. Anderson) it’s not been upheld in that way.

Look I’m not saying I like it. I’m saying it’s not really that straightforward.

Those are not the minimum qualifications. They should be read as “anyone who meets them is eligible” rather than “no one who fails to meet them is eligible.” The Rehnquist court found that states could not add a felony exclusion for Congressional candidates in the 1990s and that is broadly considered to extend to the Presidency as well. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456

If the constitution doesn’t say it, it’s not typically intended to be assumed true. The constitution doesn’t say that felons can’t be president - so we can’t assume that the states or congress could pass laws forbidding them from being president. It specifically says you can’t be president if you’re 34 or were not born a US citizen. If the writers wanted to exclude felons, they would have said so.

Yes. The constitution is actually shockingly specific about what the qualifications are. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

No other qualifications can be considered, barring a Constitutional Amendment.

Imagine telling Yann LeCun what is and isn’t right when it comes to science

You fucking what

Oh god

Oh fuck I’m so old

Broadly there are three options:

1. Buscemi is kind of an asshole and pissed people off
2. Buscemi holds a political opinion/is the subject of some conspiracy that makes him a target
3. New Yorker shit

I don’t have any info to suggest any specific option is right, and I’m too lazy to do even a modicum of research, but if I’m betting I’m betting on 3 with a hedge on 2. He seems cool as hell.

What everyone else has said but - apologize when you’re wrong. Tell your children that you were wrong, why you acted or said what you did, and how you will try to do better next time. Set the example that everyone is wrong, that it’s more important to make it right than be perfect

O

I think you mean job creators! \s

Yeah I mixed up the knowledge of how wheel size impacts speedometer accuracy with this

Whoops

They are for counting vehicles. You cannot determine speed accurately without knowing the tire circumference

In the US Flonase as well

Clean asphalt, of course. Pristine, even

Oh shouldn’t be more than a few hours. Reason? Since when have we needed a reason?