I could go for some grilled steak. U guyz?
We’re all for unexplained mysteries, not contrived ones that have been thoroughly debunked and answers found using Google for less than 15 seconds.
{} <—applause
Here’s the first paragraph of the first Google result for “gallbladder function”:
ain’t <—not a word.
This guy had the best answer to the OP:
Thank you for your objectivity.
What? This is nonsensical. The only people who think “ain’t” isn’t a word ain’t too good at linguistics.
Yeah, I didn’t want to comment on that, but “ain’t” is most certainly a word. I don’t have too many grammar-related pet peeves, but insisting that “ain’t” isn’t a word is one of them.
No, the impact theory of the formation of the moon is pretty well agreed on by astronomers these days.
Until it’s not: Titanium paternity test fingers Earth as moon's sole parent
OK, it was until recently.
The capture theory (the moon was wandering through the solar system independently and was captured by Earth) is not likely, though, especially not with these new results. The moon’s composition is just too similar to Earth’s for this to be likely.
We also don’t think the moon could have spontaneously split off from the Earth, in the process creating the Pacific Ocean. We just don’t think the Earth could have spun fast enough (about a 2.5 hour day) to fling off the moon. Also, the Pacific Ocean has not been there since the formation of the moon. That theory predates the general acceptance of plate tectonics, and so assumes that the Pacific Ocean has always been there. We think the oldest rocks in the Pacific Ocean are only around 145 million years old, a lot younger than the moon.
As someone much smarter than me once asked:
Why do we remember the past but not the future? - Stephen Hawking
The future exists only as a placeholder until Now catches up to it.
Yeah. Your mom. I mean last night she…how can I explain this. I can’t really.
The Theory of Intelligence: Or why even smart people do and say stupid things.
I’m just going to quote one of the commenters on that article:
Which only raises another unexplained question: How is this “now” different than the “now” of five minutes ago?
Is there any answer that is not a tautology?
Its a word, but very informal. In the context of the most trite and grammatically egregious flame-out I’ve ever seen, using “ain’t” just bugged me alot.
“Now” is an imaginary point on a timeline that extends backwards until, well…it doesn’t. There is no “now” of five minutes ago, because it ceases being “now” the instant after it happens.