Phi for All

Fully developed for what?

"Atomic Physicist Reveals 'Tremendous' Penis Tattoo!"

Maybe a "faint orgasm" is so tremendous you pass out? Also, "Mister Petty Atheist" isn't right. Doesn't the Navy rank you at least a Chief Petty Atheist?

Awesome! Do yourself a favor and learn mainstream science before you do too much unique and innovative viewing. Otherwise you risk filling in gaps in your knowledge with subjective guesswork and wishful thinking. There's really no such thing as thinking outside the box. The tools you need for innovation are inside the box, waiting for you to learn to use them. Best of luck!

Performance of what? It would vary depending on what physical activity you were doing. Lifting weights, running a marathon, having sex, and playing racquetball all require different muscles and abilities. Also, I'm not sure your question will get you any meaningful answers. Your body develops as you age, and each part for each person progresses differently. There really is no peak or prime. Your body will be better at certain activities at different times in your life.

Adam: "We ate the apple and didn't die. And don't call me Shirley." Surely God told the first lie then. Adam and Eve didn't die that day.

Rigoletto in the ghetto. I'm on it.

If StarMan wasn't on about atheists, I'd say this was someone who's been banned before. As it is, I think it's just a lazy creationist notching his belt with another pwned science forum full of unbelievers. This seems to be the Express Operating Procedure: Kick the door in, scream misconceptions, scream about intellectuals, scream about censorship, scream as you leave in a huff of self-righteousness. Now he can brag to his "fellowers" about the "win". Also, "meaningfully ban" from the site should be from our perspective, yes?

Most don't walk in the door so obviously ill-willed. He only had 5 posts, and he used all of them to spew, rant, and spread sickness. This swan was too ill to fly, and never got off the ground.

Some functions take time to synchronize. I've noticed a bit of delay updating parts of the system. I'm sure it's nothing sinister. Probably some swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

I could see experimenting with feeding the brain to another rat to see if it knew the trick the first rat learned. That actually sounds familiar.

Put the brain back? How does THAT work?

Ugh, why would you want to? Better to go Eibach for lower profile vehicles.

! Moderator Note Agreed. Moved to Anatomy, Physiology, and Neuroscience.

No guarantees once it's posted. Perhaps you can give an abstract of your idea? Support the concept with evidence, but leave out the details? Or you could run it past your science teacher.

A skeptic wouldn't spend so much time on the fence (it's uncomfortable and unproductive). A skeptic would learn the theory he's skeptical of first, then make the decision whether to trust it or not based on his updated knowledge. Being better informed is what skepticism is all about. You're supposed to express your skepticism about something ("Hmm, I don't know about THAT!"), then check into it rigorously, don't stop when you think it doesn't make sense, get your hands on as much as we currently know about the subject, working towards understanding. THEN decide if you can trust it, based on the evidence. Even if you still don't trust it, you look for the next best supported explanation. You don't start making things up. Removing subjective influence is a core part of scientific processes. It's SO EASY to fool yourself with custom guesswork. Your solutions seem perfect, of course, because you make them up specifically to fill gaps in your own knowledge so things make sense to you. They reflect the parts of science you do know, but they're also formed from your ignorance (sorry, it's an ugly word, but we're all ignorant in some areas). Those parts look just as real and correct to you as the rest because you hand-picked it all from your mind to be a solution that makes sense (but only to you).

! Moderator Note This is not the type of discussion we seek here. We're an international science discussion site, and you're trying to call attention to a very specific local problem by accusing someone who isn't here to defend themselves. The site's owners aren't comfortable with this kind of unsubstantiated accusation being discussed in such a one-sided way. Surely you can find a better and more influential audience on a local level? No more threads like this. Stay if you want to discuss science, or politics/religion with a scientific viewpoint, but please remember that we attack ideas here, not people. Thread closed,

It's a spectrum, like so much in our lives. Ideally, one learns as much as one can, constantly updating knowledge, putting information together in new ways as new knowledge becomes available. Ruminate on how to fulfill your obligations while keeping you and those in your sphere of influence safe and healthy. Make plans for the contingencies that are likely, and lightly monitor those plans regularly. Decide how your ethics will allow you to proceed when presented with certain situations. Prepare yourself to live your life. And then, at some point, you have to trust that you're armed with all you need to handle whatever comes along. You have the tools that aid you best, and you're an informed, decision-making, cooperative, communicative, highly intelligent human of good intent. This will help you see solutions instead of problems. I'm not sure I like defining rumination as "over-thinking". To me, that pegs the meter automatically as a bad thing. Doing anything "over" means it's too much. I think rumination needs to be contextual as well. Do I need to spend 4 hours agonizing about what to make for dinner? If it's a special dinner that could have great benefit to me, then sure! Thinking in detail about something is a lot like obsessive-compulsive disorder. There are times when much of the spectrum can be positive and helpful.

You didn't listen when it was mentioned that there are times when killing another person can be a mercy, or the only thing available to do. You have murder in mind, but you just refer to killing as evil, and not all killing is evil. Do you understand what I and others are saying? Also, try not to tell me what is "deep in my heart". You have absolutely no idea what is there, and it's sloppy science to base arguments on unsubstantiated information or guesswork. Wow, I don't like your worldview at all, sorry to say. Fallen world? The only choice is supernatural guidance and absolution of my sinful nature?! And by the way, Christianity's explanations are FAR from consistent, and don't really explain much at all about our world today. In particular, I can cite passages from old and new testaments that are conflicting in their statements, and quite obviously based on misconceptions one would expect to find in Bronze Age authors. Preaching is also talking AT people about something you believe in without supportive reasoning and evidence. To persuade us to your way of thinking, you don't use rational thoughts, but instead offer supernatural guesswork. I can support the scientific explanations I have with mounds of substantiated evidence from observations and experimentation. The predictive power of scientific explanations is incredible, and much more demonstrable than the efforts of your god. If I can show you a great deal of evidence that shows most of the reasons you have faith in your god are wrong or misunderstood, would you change your mind? If not, then you're just preaching. I assure you, if you could have your god become observable to science so they could gather evidence in a consistent way to support trust in his existence, I would change MY mind. We're getting close to being able to grow an amputated leg back. For all the claims of the Christian god being able to heal the sick, he's never once regrown an arm or a leg for one of his faithful. I offer this as evidence that there may not be any god(s) after all. I don't say there is no god, I'm just saying I'll stick to my belief in the intelligence and sensibilities of humans until a god becomes just as observable.

! Moderator Note The attempt at producing evidence is very much appreciated, but your examples are mostly more unsubstantiated claims based on your assumptions and incredulity. Please take the corrections being offered to you and adjust your arguments. And please present actual objective evidence, not hand-waving and "common sense".

This is a tip-off that you only studied it up to a point, didn't understand it, stopped studying it any further, and decided to make something up that made more sense to you. That is NOT logic. It's a very modern, very pop-sci version of logic, but it's not right. It's not good to fill in the gaps in your knowledge with stuff you've made up, or that others have made up with guesswork. It's clearly indefensible, it wastes your time when you could be learning mainstream science, and none of it has any evidence to support it the way the Big Bang theory does.

The instructions were based on a lie (on the day you do this you will surely die). I consider this type of lie to be evil, especially since it aided in the attempt to withhold knowledge of good and evil. The salvation from evil might well include knowledge of good and evil. I rarely fix anything I don't know about.

! Moderator Note Why aren't you talking about your theory, other than claiming you're right without using any reasoning or evidence? That's what soapboxing/preaching is. Since it's clear you're only going to keep preaching about this without showing any actual supportive reasoning or evidence, and refuse to engage with calls for you to explain your pixelated universe speculation, there's no point in discussing this with you. Why did you choose a science discussion site if you won't actually discuss anything? Don't bring this up again until you're ready to explain it and answer questions about it in conversation format. Information is mandatory for a discussion's success. Thread closed.

I might classify some wars and crimes as evil, but not natural calamities or illnesses. Intent is the way I would define evil. A storm has no intent, nor is there anything with sentience driving it. The same thing with a naturally occurring illness. The way to start to stop the wars and crimes is to eliminate the need. Many "evil" things happen because people are in desperate situations economically. Making it easier to get the things we all need to live happily helps people avoid doing evil.

By flipping the bird?!