Phi for All

This isn't the definition of belief a scientist would use, so the rest is pointless. This sounds like the definition of faith. Perhaps you should think of the way a scientist believes as "trust". Look for evidence, don't accept anyone's word, test it yourself, make sure you're describing the way reality behaves. Trust.

"Not the most healthful" is pretty diplomatic, thanks. But I still think you're blaming the meat for what is essentially mismanagement on our part. If we don't require better quality from fast food vendors, or if we choose to eat steak and potatoes 3/wk while binging Netflix, can we really blame the meat?

How the meat is prepared is going to be a controlled parameter in any testing, and personally I don't think that's the important part in this context. When reports suggest "red meat is unhealthy", it's a popular spin to grab attention. What the studies actually suggest is that red meat increases certain risk factors in certain people with regard to some serious medical conditions. Red meats are also more associated with injected hormones that may cause problems. Meats and fish tend to be pro-oxidants, so they rather work against many medical recommendations, which makes the vegetarian and vegan approach appealing. And what fast food has done to red meat is a crime. I don't trust their "meat" at all. But red meats are safer from fecal contamination because we don't eat the skin of the cow. For those restricting methionine for cancer therapy, red meat is better than chicken or fish. It poses a lower risk for prostate cancer, but a higher rate for colon cancer. Plant foods have the least PCB contamination, but red meat is the lowest of the animal proteins, with milk, eggs, and fish having increasingly more. I'd say moderation and a healthy lifestyle are probably more important parameters to think about. Here's something to think about. A study on pregnancies determined that vegan women have twins at a rate 5 times less than women who eat meat. One could argue that meat eaters are more fertile, or are more capable of supporting more offspring. On the other hand, multiple pregnancies are difficult and pose a much higher risk on mother and babies. One could argue that veganism is safer.

EdEarl's answer is spot on. Accept that ultralight planes or some kind of fixed-wing jet suit is as close to personal flight as humans will get. We are not a flappy species, and will never be if we want to keep our big brains.

I wish I'd thought of that.

It's always so hard to fathom how someone who doesn't know much science can make a sweeping negative judgement about one of its best supported theories. What flavor of ignorance is holding you back?

! Moderator Note It's against the rules to start threads advertising your blog. It's also against the rules to require someone go offsite or watch a video in order to participate in a discussion here. You can discuss the topics of your blog and even quote yourself from there, but don't advertise it here. We're a discussion site. Closing this thread.

! Moderator Note That's the only attempt to engage in actual discussion, and it falls flat even here in the Lounge. You need to start a blog somewhere.

! Moderator Note No posting to advertise your YouTube channel. This is a science discussion forum.

! Moderator Note Moved to the Lounge, since no science.

! Moderator Note It seems clear you aren't accepting the valid reasons you've been given, even when they're pointed out to you repeatedly. In cases like these, where the OP is looking for something beyond mainstream and ignoring the mainstream explanations, it's unfair to those trying to give a decent answer to let the thread stay open. This looks a lot like other stubborn attempts to force misunderstandings into a wonderful opportunity for learning. You know by now what you need to do to keep the thread open, so please engage. Fair warning.

! Moderator Note Sorry, this is a discussion forum. No advertising your YouTube channels.

I'm sorry, I was commenting on your physics argument only. I have zero interest in your philosophical view (sorry ), but I feel it lends tacit support to bad science not to correct flaws. Also, I'm not good at blending the what/where/when/how aspects of science with the why aspect of philosophy. For instance, I have no idea why you think "things" with science need improving more than the method already allows for. It's the most trustworthy way we've ever had of explaining phenomena, and it's been squeezing the supernatural out of the gaps in our knowledge quite successfully for some time.

I don't like your Physics Flaw argument at all. From what we observe in reality, the physical laws hold sway everywhere. Sure, we don't know it for sure, we haven't seen everywhere, but why should we invest energy in your "it could be different" argument when there is zero evidence? Every bit of evidence we've come across so far says physics is the same. The default position should be "it's the same everywhere until we observe differently".

! Moderator Note Hardly arbitrarily. Someone frustrated that you don't actually read responses to your posts reported your thread as being unproductive. Upon review by staff, we concurred. You seem to have incorrect answers you want people to give to your questions, and when they don't you ignore them, and repeat your questions. You don't discuss, you cherry-pick what you want to deal with. This may be causing you to push away the very help you need to get the best explanations.

This seems more like opinions on why this particular restricted calorie diet isn't working, rather than anyone telling him something his doctor should be telling him.

Were you biking before you started the diet? Could you be trading fat for more muscle to start, so it looks like there's little change? The only thing I don't like in your diet is the crackers and croutons. Is it for the crunch? Can you get jicama to do that? I agree with fiveworlds about the salty. But not about the fat, that seems fine with the rest. You have to retain water in ratio to your salt intake, so you could have some water weight.

! Moderator Note We try to leave threads like this open long enough for learning experiences to develop, but it's clear that the OP is interested only in building on misconceptions instead of taking advantage of scientific discussion with more knowledgeable members. That's when this stops being productive and starts being a soapbox for ignorance. Add in the god references in Quantum Theory, and the generalization of Arabs, and it's clear we need some closure.

This assumes both mountains have equal value, which misunderstands your needs and exaggerates your desires.

If there's a devil-like influence in the world, I think it's religious types who swoon over their own god while condemning those who believe differently. It's one of the major hurdles we face as a species, imo.

It was important only because it gave the world a person who would eventually transfer that unconditional love to reality, where it belongs.

I hate to profile, but this seems like the kind of drivel people who scoffed at science in high school come up with later in life to justify their mistake. They probably had the intelligence to study correctly, and learn science methodology, and develop some good critical reasoning skills. Instead, they chose to remain ignorant, but learned how to stitch together this mishmash of popsci buzzwords, in a way that makes sense only to them, which isn't science at all.

Why is it you see no excuse for not promoting solar, you understand that this guy in the video is wrong about solar cells, and you side with the professors at your university on these points, yet you still think he's right about AGW being a hoax? How can you be a critical thinker and still be swayed by this kind of appeal?!

Not a great analogy, since by taking the valley you avoid both mountains. Better to think of these varying methods of explanation as tools. When you're looking for a natural explanation, science is the biggest help. If you need something spiritual/supernatural, religion will definitely be a better choice. Now the question is how much science you'll learn so natural explanations increase your knowledge of the real world.

Free advice. Stop learning just the top layer of science and trying to blend it with your faith. Science is all about the natural world, and religion is about the supernatural. Learning bits of both and blending them leads to complete confusion (for example, you claim the universe is in an ideal state, then later claim a superior intelligence could fix it so it works properly). If you want to learn about science, you need to peel the whole onion. It's all connected. You can keep the religion if you wish, just keep it separate.