Phi for All

But there was a time when the planet had no life as part of its substance. Wasn't it still a planet?

Great question. I think the distinction is probably life. The planet would still be a planet without life.

I'm sorry to hear about the job, but it's their loss. They'll hire two people for your money and neither one will get the job done right. At this point, I think it would be good to remind you there's nothing bad that can happen to you that wouldn't be made a couple of orders of magnitude worse by smoking again. You're exactly right about not compounding your problems unnecessarily. After all, if you want to see how much gas is in the car, you look at the gauge, you don't light a match and peer down the mouth of the tank.

We had a reported reply in this thread. The claim was that the person replying is trolling by giving answers in more than one thread the OP is involved in. We don't understand why this is a bad thing. If more trolls would give helpful answers, we wouldn't call them trolls.

Let's try that.

Since you're clueless about the existence of self, doesn't this mean it's pointless to try and talk with you?

It's not that you make the mistake of trying to rewrite basic science terminology to better suit what you're thinking. That's merely annoying, like any amateur trying to talk like a professional. The real problem, why you're getting so much resistance, is that you're not only trying to talk like a pro, you're trying to tell the pros they have it wrong, you're lashing out at people who're trying to get you to stop re-writing science because you don't understand science. They're offering time-honored advice, just learn the basics first. I mean really, you actually blamed a professional physicist for not "extracting the math" from your appropriated-word-salad. You wandered into the locker room during halftime at the Super Bowl and told the quarterback he needs to flip the pellet before his long catchers shimmy up the grass lines so it will meet them in Saint Looey. Then you blamed him when he asked you to explain what you mean. Not cool.

That sounds like a more practical option than trying to cheat death by putting your old head on a young body.

Who is this for? If you're the type who uses his brain a lot, you'd be putting a worn-out brain on a young body. And if you have a barely-used brain, I don't think you deserve a younger and stronger body. And then there are those who would need proctoscopy to find their brains....

Actually, I think the most likely explanation is that the mother, in order to wave at the passing motorcade, shifted her left arm under her child's butt to better support her without hugging her too tightly to her hips. She could be using her arm as more of a platform rather than a gripper, and trusting that the 2-3 year-old will do the gripping with her legs and right arm. This explains why you can't see Mom's left arm (it's under the baby's jumper), and why her shoulders are level. I don't think the baby is CIA. It sounds like a great cover, but people stare at babies too much.

We're looking for a way to give you a hint but don't know where the question becomes difficult for you. We don't want to flood you with information you already know, we don't want to tell you the answer, and we don't want to give you a hint that falls short of helping you understand how to answer the question.

Honestly, the more I think about this, the sillier it becomes. Like finding people in photos from WWI who look like they're talking on cell phones. I don't even understand the conspiracy, unless the baby is CIA.

It's been a while since my daughter was that young, but I remember moving almost constantly while holding her on my hip. It wasn't a significant movement, more of a rocking my weight from one foot to the other. At that age, it keeps them from wiggling themselves. And btw, I think the one working to justify something in this thread is you. But you aren't working hard. Your evidence is inconclusive, and your Appeal to Incredulity is worthless as support. You're basically saying that people watching a motorcade always hold still for the camera, and you can't think of any other way this picture could have happened naturally. When given a reasonable explanation with supportive evidence, you toss it aside as a justification. That's not what a true skeptic does. I agree with CharonY, this is a physics question, not anatomy.

! Moderator Note This isn't a "Do you believe in God?" thread. The OP specifically asked for modern biblical interpretations from a theological standpoint. Let's stay on topic, please.

I thought they kept this ability for a month, and since Fared had only been here a few days....

Go to your profile page by clicking on your name, then at the upper right click Edit My Profile. On the left you'll see Display Name, click that, and it should take you to a page that will let you change your display name.

I remember reading something similar about humboldt squids attacking fishermen and pulling them underwater to drown (not sure if anyone has actually been killed though). It was a dramatization based on reports, and it was memorable as well. I couldn't imagine a creepier way to die than to be pulled under by a creature with a fourth of my weight and five times the arms I have. And apparently they flash red and white as they attack, so extra creepy points for that.

What if people move sort of constantly, and the camera only captures an instant, freezing them into positions that they only held for a moment?

And that, at least, is understandable. But some of the stances I've seen are fairly insulting (from my perspective) to biologists. Like despite everything they've done to advance science for the whole world, they missed this big frikkin' dinosaur colony, never found a shred of evidence it was there all along.

I don't like the fascination for cryptids. I think it attempts to sensationalize biology, and gives the impression that normal creatures aren't fantastic enough. I watched a TV special recently on the coelacanth. They dove deep to find one, and there was so much fascinating information about them and the lobe-finned fish. But the show felt the same need to sensationalize, pretending one of the divers got caught in a line (it was a buoy line that was attached to him, I don't know what the big deal was), emphasizing the dangers of the bends, and in general trying to make a subject that was already scientifically exciting more exciting to people who aren't excited by science. I think the hunt for cryptids is counterproductive. I'd be very skeptical of any evidence gathered by an expedition funded specifically to find one. Wouldn't the best evidence come from a group that was looking for something else and stumbled on a find? Why do you think that's never happened? And I think this subject is for those who don't find mainstream science exciting enough. I don't know why some people are so fascinated by these claims. It's almost as if they want to scream and point fingers at the stupid biologists who got it wrong all this time.

One race, many flavors and colors.

You still talk as if the way you've conditioned yourself like the Naruto character is a great thing. You mention how it works with "overly emotional" people, implying that emotions are bad. You delight in being unreadable. It sounds like you may have decided, in the past, that if you can't get people to be friendly, then intimidating them with a steely-eyed non-expression will do. Again, I think it's an act, and you need to drop it rather than adopt a new act. You don't think you have a good personality, but that's not really for you to judge. Others will decide whether you're interesting and give them an adequate amount of comfort in your presence. It also sounds like, in a typical encounter with a colleague, you make it all about you, how you look, how you're appearing to the other person, if you're being polite enough, etc. A big part of talking with co-workers is showing you care about them and what they've got going on, how the family's doing, where did you go on vacation, all the details that can make an interesting conversation. Caring is often the difference between solid and hollow. Do you care about these people?

I'm glad I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read that.

I like that. If I may, I'll borrow from the bard as well. There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow an asteroid. If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, then it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all. --Hamlet, William Shakespeare

It's not something you need to apologize for. I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of popular misconceptions about what a theory is, what a skeptic is, and what logic is. Most people don't think of these concepts the way those in science do. Being skeptical is good. But when faced with compelling evidence, or a distinct lack of it, maintaining skepticism starts to look more like denial. Just sayin'.