Sayonara

That's all very well lucaspa, but trukrguy said "Common Designer?", and BlackPower replied with "I hear you with the design". I then put the word design in quotes. It is pretty clear in the context what kind of design I am talking about.

Can you explain these bits: ...and... ??? ???

Apes and monkeys belong to the infraorder Simiiformes. The groups are biologically and reproductively distinct, with the last split between monkeys and apes occurring some 25 million years ago.

Chillax. Humans belong to the family Hominidae, along with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. There are no monkeys which belong to that family; only the great apes. This is how humans are classified taxonomically - "belief" in that classification is not required. By all means you may not wish to subscribe to that system of classification, but if you want to actively object to it then providing a reasoned alternative system will help people to see your point of view. It's up to you as the reader to discern the content of the message from the tone. In the face of all that exists it is easy to feel dwarfed and awed by the vast complexity and variety of the... everything. Easy and also justifiable. We might not know the merest fraction yet of the nature of the universe, but we can and will continue trying. The scientific method has, historically, had the best track record for discriminating between fact and fantasy. Until something which is demonstrably better comes along, as a species we'll keep using it.

The mechanism that leads to males having nipples is relatively simple and well understood. "Design" is a flight of fancy which has no evidence behind it, and - more importantly - no functional necessity.

I think people might be a bit concerned that you don't really know what your "A value" represents. This would be a valid concern, since it has various implications for your interpretations.

I'd like to see a reference being cited for "nipple gene extracted from half-billion year old soft tissue", personally.

Thread already exists for this topic: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35603

I was going for 10 per thread but your idea works for me.

People reading this please be advised: staff won't appreciate lots of requests for trivial edits!

You might not be good at calculating but you sure do make me smile.

The idea of the minimum post level on certain forums is that we want members using those forums to have an idea of how SFN works before they go charging in. So I strongly suggest that you stop making pointless one-liner replies to threads, because these will be deleted as spam. Instead, take the time to read threads and join in the discussions properly

Medically, an alcoholic is not somebody who "drinks a lot". Alcoholics are people whose bodies have become so dependent on alcohol that they will literally shut down and die without it. So in that scenario someone who was an "alcohic" could not exit, using the medical terminology, but someone predisposed to alcoholism possibly could. It would be interesting to see how such a person would fare in an alcohol-free environment. Would they always feel there was 'something missing', or would they be no different to the rest of us?

The signal dissolves in the water and travels through the pipes to the municipal water treatment plant, where it is closer to the network.

You've called it both a theory and a hypothesis during this thread. I presume then that you simply thought these terms were synonymous with "idea". They aren't, which might be why you are encountering a lot of resistance! There's nothing wrong with bouncing ideas about, and do you really want people to just agree with you, or do you actually want people who will highlight holes in the idea which you haven't spotted yourself? The problems this idea has right now are: (1) it tries to account for some of the attributes of the current models, but ignores others, (2) it fails to explain planet formation because observable facts contradict it.

That is not something you hear very often.

Works for me.

Traveler: you don't have a scientific theory unless your idea makes quantified, specific, falsifiable predictions. If you are not going to provide them, then just stop typing.

Lifted straight from Teleomechanist. Techne, are you the owner of this material? If not you are in violation of our rules and probably breaching copyright law.

Further to that, can I point out that this is not going to be the "let's bash Pete and/or his beliefs" thread. It was split off to address his concerns re: moderation and post-reporting without taking the original thread off-topic.

Pioneer, I moved your post into this thread from the thread containing the off-topic argument. You presumably didn't notice where you were posting it.

Posts undeleted so everyone can see what YT is talking about. Read, lather, repeat.

The o/t argument has been split off to Pete's Complainy Thread to prevent the swansong from taking this thread off-topic.

Pete, please stop trying to use the post reporting function as a weapon for clubbing people with whom you have a disagreement. That is not what it is there for. I am sure that you are grown up enough to understand that in these situations - as the saying goes - it takes two to tango.