forufes

teeth? but how can the horses hang upside down then?

that could be "noise" occuring to the same medium your minds eye is operating on.. also, the feeling of being watched isn't necessarily linked to eyes being put on you, but rather an associated emotion that accompanies heavy surveillance, hence the feeling of "being watched"

body language, especially facial expressions, are most of the time done or "transmitted" without the person transmitting them notices.. they are also precieved or usually without the person precieving them notices, without him being aware that he is reading such language, and that such expressions are affecting him.. you look at the face of a guy who's speaking to you, and you just KNOW he's lying, you look to another, and you know he's telling the truth..those can be manupilated of course but that's not the point. how do you know it's body language and facial expressions? because you can't tell when with the same guy on msn or reading his mail. voice tones can be embedded with such information as well, information which is transmitted and received, and which is using a medium we sometime know, and sometimes don't. telepathy can be the same, to one degree or another. an english teacher once told us that the body transmits electromagnetic waves based on one's emotions.. how dogs know an earthquake is coming, is the same way they know a human who is facing them with no fear, and one who is scared shitless, albeit their appearances are the same.. others say dogs can "smell" fear. bottom line, they know, one way or another, the medium isn't confirmed yet, but that's no reason to say it doesn't exist. making telepathy not illogical. some twins get sick at the same time even when they're in different continents.. you can feel someone is watching you even though you can't sense him in a normal way. mothers intuition.. etc..

ok, so klaynos and jill swift both have three green cards yet one has a rep power of 3 and the other of 16.. and i have added rep points to people without noticing a change in either..

reality isn't reality.. it has no definite value, reality i mean, any explenation to reality (including science) is as good as how well it strings the pieces of the puzzle together.. the puzzle of life doesn't have a defined set of pieces to be solved with, those pieces being scientific findings or any other products of a certain methodology. science is based on our perception of reality, not reality. and any scientific piece that doesn't fit the puzzle is due to a mistake in our perception, in science, not reality.

alright! better start kissing up then..

and unless i'm mistaken, rep power and the little green cards and rep points are three different things? i'm just guessing, but how many rep points make up a rep power? there's no way to know exactly how many rep points i have?

well, why?

can rep points become minus?

two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do!

well at least you have hope.. welcome aboard..

in 2012, i'll be ruling the world, any notes people?

the forces are the same but the displacement isn't..

but the tenth of our intellect is sufficient for us to get over fed, food is literally wasted in our world, if you mention Africa, well get into politics, but go to a restaurant or cafeteria and peek inside the "waste" bins, sit around after a wedding is finished to see where all the food goes to..my point is, even though most of us use only about tenth of our brain power, that is more than sufficient to get us enough food for us to throw in garbage bins. if all four legged animals along with plants died out or burnt one day, humans can fish, but would salamanders last long enough to develop teeth to become carnivores or complex stomachs to digest seaweed?

in their ability to live, to maintain their life, to stay alive. i.e. the amount of sweat evolution put into them, as survival is evolution's handiwork. IMHO, this is a fallacy, these two metrics are the same. Q: why has coordination been introduced, if not to be well adapted? intellectual capacity is the finest form of evolution, of "adaptation", and the holder of such trait can be considered to be the most advanced and ccomplex. because intelligence is able to replace any other traits missed out, that is why humans are dominating the earth, not monkeys, and it is monkeys who are in zoos, not humans, and if a meteor was going to strike the earth, humans can go into space or under water like fish and dolphins, not monkeys. humans, with their intelligence, are the most able to adapt. they are the most complex and advanced. a black belt karate master is nothing in front of an old lady with an AK-47. that is an analogy, for the AK-47 can be useless in other situations where karate is more useful. intelligence is not, it is a master key, evolution's finest. as i said, intelligence i\fits all enviornments, even those not intended for life(like space). but i'm interested in hearing of the environment that made intelligence a must, instead of climbing trees. (not to mention that for those who climbing trees is a necessity for, they only need the first 6 to 7 years of their life to develop such ability, the human brain and body is capable of feats close or similar to those of many animals. climbing trees like monkeys, running fast like four legged animals, staying underneath water for so long nearly like some underwater mammles, relatively spaeking of course.)

i really can't believe how this has been dragging on, evolution intentionally or unintentionally makes species more suited to live... by actually having us able to describe what it does, by it actually doing SOMETHING, then it has a direction, as it isn't doing nothing as in unmoving, nor is it doing nothing as in moving in a direction of unrecognized pattern.. improvement may not be the same depending on the circumstances, but evolution IS heading toward improvements, reword it as you like. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedi'm also yet to discover why're you all fighting tooth and nail to keep it purposeless, aimless.. what does it bring down in evolution? what part does it screw up?

hey there's no need to get angry, look at what they did to my trunk and branch example, they went about telling me how they're not a trunk and branch but rather two branches, when my point was that they should grow to about the same length, i took it as a misunderstanding, but even if it's not, even if it is a straw man, what else can i do but re-explain what i meant? also, i really don't see a difference between an arguing tone and a learning one, if you expected me to just nod my head to whatever you tell me and take it for granted without looking for answers your answers didn't answer or even created, then it seems i might not suit you as a student, otherwise i appreciate your posts.. and btw, you should be arguing too, with your "explaining" attitude it's like you're above learning yourself, it's like you're in a "sending" mode with your "receiving" ports closed, say what you have, but follow up if it shows to be bested by other participants in the argument (i'm not referring to myself of course:D) as for "my" argument, that's not it, mine was of the branches, why would one keep evolving and the other stop? why would one develop systems and other stay one-celled? sysiphus said different evolution rates, that's something new for me which seems to solve my "argument", although i need to look more into it.. but i can completely imagine speciation, the general idea at least, but there's some bits which were hard to swallow here: doesn't this make your argument circular? uh, i disagree, i think the off spring of the interbreeding process would be more apt to survive, BOTH environments, isn't that what we do between horses and donkeys and different types of corn?(i forgot the name). why would such occurrence be regarded differently when done naturally? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedhey i've been thinking about this for some time: and when you mentioned breeding and surnames: i thought; won't humans, billions and billions of years from now, look a lot much similar? a son(one person), is a combination of his parents(two people).. he won't have double the capacity to have exactly both their traits, so some would be lost, so more breeding, more traits lost.. meaning that breeding diminishes differences, not create new ones..it starts with many but end up with less, i mean some of our grandchildren would marry others of our grandchildren, carrying shared traits and producing even more shared and common ones, till what? all of us carry the same faces? or is breeding like mixing colors*? *but won't the destination be one albeit multiple possible routs? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged more complex, unless you think you're as complex as a monkey:eek: i know there's no distinction, but why would different environments deploy different rates of evolution upon the species? there's room for evolution in any environment as any other, no? well i meant we have advanced from our common ancastor more than monkey have.. but in "advanced", can't that be "more apt to survive"? I want to know what non-humans have been discussing evolution that was a reply to this lol, you got the first part right, but doesn't the fork which stayed in their prior environment having a smaller evolution rate than the ones which went to a new environment imply that the first ones which stayed are slowing down because they've neared their "destination"? so i guess here the dilemma manifests: A-creatures alive today are of different levels of complexity(hydra, the something crabs, animals, humans) B-evolution rate is the same,(which is impossible and doesn't make sense, implying either species didn't start off at the same point or some have stopped at some point..bringing us to:..) C-evolution happens at different rates. and this seems a fitting answer, but on what basis? change of environment? how does that affect the rate?

my point was very simple.. truth be told, at first i did feel a bit guilty for derailing this thread to evolution instead on neuromechanisms of belief, but going back to my point, i found them strongly interlocking.. the summery of the thread is to say that belief in a diety is a result of neurological functions humans develop. iNow, the OP starter, says he doesn't care if a deity really exists or not, for the thread is simply about how the belief works... and so, i gave him his atmosphere, and played by his rules, and gave my note about the belief mechanism in my first post #35. and so i repeat: saying that the belief in a deity was made up by the human mind, that it's a natural part of the human mind to hold such belief, might have the idea(and i'm not pointing any fingers here, definitely to no atheists), that such belief is false, even though it was stated clearly that this thread has nothing to do with the validity of the statement "a deity exists". but by saying it's normal for a brain to "make it up", with my psychotic nature, i thought someone was trying to pull the mat from under holders of such belief, it's really simple really IMO, which is what drove me mad when you were all acting as if nothing has happened, and that it's me who's rude, well i might have been so, but i was so very clearly and straight forwardly, i didn't slither around and play mazes, and again i'm not pointing fingers at nobody:D. but if someone really had that in mind while creating such thread, it seems he didn't consider what i asked about; practicality.. so the belief in a deity is the result of some nueromechanisms in our brains... so what? some might think that holders of such beliefs would squirm in their seats worrying that their brain has been playing games on them for all this years, while those who liberated themselves from such delusions might raise their heads and puff their chests, feeling in control of even their brains' tricks.. but if our brain was playing on us by making up or introducing such belief, didn't it do it for a reason? which brings evolution to the equation. the neuromechanisms being a product of our brain's evolution, doesn't mean that we are evolving by holding such belief? (cries):HECK NO! we're DEvolving by holding such belief..you dumwit.. Ohh, but if our brain has been caught introducing bad things to us now, then couldn't it and other aspects of evolution or change or whatever also have introduced such bad mutations which got embedded into us unnoticed before? doesn't that bring the theory of evolution down on it's head? if evolution works by keeping good AND bad mutations, instead of good only, can it be reliable as an explanation to our ever so simple origin for us such ever so complex beings? or do evolutionists need to add a couple more eons to the age of the world for the new busted evolution to fit the profile? as a mutation, how is the belief in a deity classified? it's just what i said in post #35.. and i apologize for any perceived rudeness.

.... to make it simple, if it supports atheism, welcome aboard and thanks for posting, if it seems to be going in a direction i don't like, then excuse me, this isn't about whether god exists or not, it's about how the belief works, big difference, but even if you want to discuss that by terms other than ours even better,it's off topic, go discuss it somewhere else. is that the case? cuz that's what it seems to me. what am i supposed to do when you see my argument flawless,and no way for you to refute it, and so cowardly discard it as off topic? when you say: change huh? well how can anything change to something if not in SOME direction? what is improvement, other than change? what is change from inanimate rocks into live organisms with emotions and logic and complex biological systems, what change could that be called, other than improvement..? oh, but you already know how weak your point is,if it can be considered a point to begin with, and so you plant your shield and hide behind it: it seems you are not if you're not gonna pat me on the back and tell me how right i am, then please let me stay asleep, huh? you have a serious problem, one which you might share with many others,and you people seriously need to fix it. it is at times like these that i feel ashamed to have my professional person related to science.

yes i know, but what i'm saying is that, when a branch goes off the trunk, the trunk doesn't have to disappear,nor does the branch has to be the spitting image of the trunk, what i'm saying is they should both have the almost same amount of length (evolution) from since they parted, the human branch is way much longer (more evolved) than the monkey trunk. also again, relatively speaking. you are raising three matters here, two of which are two faces of one; 1-humans aren't more advanced orevolved than monkeys. i have to heavily disagree, by all accounts and pointsof view,we are more evolved,which is matter three. 2-for monkeys to evolve, they don't have to become like humans. i totally agree, they can be as monkeyishly evolved as they want, but evolved none the less. 3-evolution is a subjective term when used by humans. i partially agree, as we can't discuss it with someone who isn't human, so we can't understand aspects of evolution outside the human scope.. buti still think that no matter any scope you choose, humans will always be far away more evolved than monkeys. notify family is the only one which started life. there was no other surname on earth for my aunt to marry from. you follow me?

ok, there was something that was bugging me ever since i read "hijacks" in the OP title, i was misunderstood in the first time so i'll try to be clearer this time.. i DO understand that this thread isn't about whether or not god exists, but more of an explanation and discussion of how the belief in a deity exists between humans, and why it's very common.. first i'll state what i take as facts, pieces of information which i'll base my conclusion upon, if there's any disagreement on any of them, then we should clear that first: 1-the belief in god is a product of evolutionary processes humans undergo. 2-the whole idea of evolution is to, well, evolve, to become better, to be suited better to survive, adapt, continue on living, it's an important process to a race's survival. any disagreements? please state them. if not, we'll move forward, so no need to jump ahead of things.

how about cutting the gadget part and wrapping it either around your wrist or around your chest(without the bra part)? you can also keep a small aerosol of pepper spray in your pocket, or knife, or nunchako, or just carry a gin, or take a karate crash course before you go on vacation, hire a body guard, never leave a crowd, exercise your legs to run like the wind.. or just wear a wig:D

i'm sorry i'm totally lost, couldn't find nor come up with anything.. this is the link to the image of the device you provided, in case someone else can be more useful.. http://www.concept2.com/us/oars/related_products/Oarlocks.asp

well instead of labeling them stupid and shooing them away, they should confront the subject and discuss it..what happened to "you should once in a while put question marks in things you believed for your entire life"? why is evolution branded as perfectly correct and above debate? and even if it was absolutely correct, why would it be above debate, don't you want to share your discoveries with others and show them how you're right? or are you afraid (and none of this is directed at Sisyphus) that by them sharing their findings with you you might see that you are wrong and them right? or is evolution, being a product of science, better than all other hypothesis which compete in explaining the origin of life? and may that be so, then it seems you have all forgotten that science advances by questioning what is established and given, even if that established given is a product of science itself, which soon will be past misconceptions... as for me, i believe in evolution, though not for humans, and i thought i knew enough about it, till i read some threads here, and knew i was far away from it, so i am inquiring to answer the questions which rose to me, to recalculate the situation and take a new stance if needed, something it seems, many of you don't have the guts to do. more like starting off with the common ancestor and show how he became human. EXCELLENT!! yes, something like that, although i think we should start with a part of the universe, because we'll end up with humans, who are a part of the universe, i think we should discard the rest, but if you see otherwise please share. also your description, although fits the general idea, is too compressed and lacks gaps for us to ask our "how"s and "why"s...also we can start from wherever life starts because that's as insane alien mentioned, the concern of biology and evolution, especially if the thread is gonna stay in this subforum.

but isn't science a way to explain the truth? it takes a founded happening, analyzes it, notes down it's findings and stores it to use it afterwards in analyzing some other happening.. when you say;"discover the truth".. it's like you're saying the truth exists, and can be grasped by science -or any other method for all that matters-, it's like you're saying the universe is based on 100% perfect scientific laws and science is advancing to unveil them and become perfect..and "discover the truth".. what i'm trying to say is, truth doesn't follow science, science follows truth(and you can substitute "reality" for "truth") if someday a guy had his skull cracked, was found to have no brain, and continued living, would he be wrong or would brainology be wrong?