Phi for All

Glider, is there any cumulative damaging effects to this practice, other than increasing the likliehood of fainting? Also, beware taking showers that hot if you've had any alcohol. This puts additional pressure on the cardiovascular system.

I know experts don't recommend staying in hot tubs or hot springs very long. A local hot springs I know has a pool that is 106 degrees and your not allowed to stay in that more than 5 minutes (after you've been acclimated by soaking in progressively warmer pools before you hit the 106). The hot water causes your cardiovascular system to go into overdrive, your blood vessels dilate, your blood pressure drops, heart rate increases to keep up with the pressure loss, your blood pumps faster, etc. You are also bypassing the normal cooling process of sweating and blood is being pumped to the skin to release heat that can't radiate out because your in hot water. I don't know what damage this can cause but it could be similar to heatstroke. Over the long run, doing this twice a day can't be a safe practice.

You're right, I did not go back far enough in rereading. I apologize. I started the misunderstanding. Let's end the misunderstanding here. Jesus and his followers created Christianity. What has come to be the Catholic Church was the first officially recognized and canonized form of Christianity. It's followers outnumber (however slightly) all other Christian denominations. It was incorrect of hermes3 to claim that what Catholics believe is not what most Christians believe. Can we go on from here?

You're dropping the wrong word! I never said anything about who CREATED Christianity, which is what you're arguing. I said what is now the Catholic Church was the first officially recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity. I'll say it again, I'm not talking about the creation of Christianity. This must be a misunderstanding on your part. I think I make it very clear when I'm posting as a Moderator and when I'm posting as a member. My "authority here" has not been needed. If I seem belligerent (although, as a Taurus, I prefer your bull-igerent )it's because of two points: 1. You seem determined to misread what I write, even though it's very plain. You target arguments I have not made. In fact, most of the discussions we have had in this and other threads have all been because I tried to clarify or object to a specific point you made. You then proceed to argue all around the point rather than admit you might have exaggerated or misspoke. 2. When I responded to herme3's statement about what the Catholic Church had done and how it didn't reflect what most Christians believed, it was to correct his use of the majority and also because it frustrates me no end to hear one group of Christians talk about how another group of Christians have it all wrong. This is a problem with religions in general, but I find it specifically bothersome among people who believe in the words of Jesus. It is appalling to me the amount of misery and strife that has arisen from discrepancies about what it means to "believeth in Him". The population statistics aren't necessarily gathered from the Churches themselves, which would obviously be tainted. More often it's from census information where people are asked personally which religion they belong to. Arguably, randomness and nature could be God working in mysterious ways, no? I was pointing out that evolution isn't concerned with what is behind the changes in allele frequencies over time, only that they are observable and verifiable. That is an interesting belief system, and I mean that sincerely. It was never my intention to argue what your faith was about, only that you not ascribe to evolution things it has nothing to do with.

Ladybugs. Queen bees. Black widow spiders. And butterlies all seem to have a generally feminine aspect. I agree that, with the planets, their aspect is based on which gods they represented. I'm only familiar with the Greek and Roman appellations. Did other mythologies identify their gods with the planets? (Moved from Theoretical Physics to Astronomy. If the focus continues being simply gender it will move to GD.)

It's not just hard, it's completely impossible, because evolution doesn't attempt to explain the beginnings of the universe. Nothing in the theory suggests how life started, only how it changes from generation to generation.

More meaningless handwaving, trying to force evolution to be at complete odds with creationism. Do you really not understand that evolution is all about passing genes along to the next generation? Do you subscribe to some apochryphal belief that God, through the Holy Spirit, passed His genes along to Jesus and that Jesus had children and passed his genes along to further generations? I've never heard this from a creationist before.

Becuase "uni-verse" is only a name given to what was, at the time, considered to be the one, all encompassing realm of existense. If that is possibly wrong, do we deny the possibility by hanging on tenaciously to the meaning behind it's original name?

I said nothing about who "officially created" Christianity. Both you and herme3 are changing the target of the argument which is a strawman tactic. Please stop it. I asked You are able to read the NT because it was first put together with the OT as the Christian Bible at the Council of Laodicea by what is now called the Catholic Church. I'm sorry this seems to be such an ugly, deplorable truth for you "true" Christians, but it is historical fact. Deal with it. So what does this mean? Are they no longer Protestants? Do you bring this up because you are claiming there are many secret Protestants who are no longer recognized by their church but should be counted as Christians for the purpose of making herme3's statement about "most Christians" valid? The significance of the US as a nation has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the argument, which is quite simply about herme3 making this generalized, ill-conceived comment: All I have done is point out the fallacy of his statement, since Catholics ARE "most Christians". If you can't admit that this is a mistake, then you are showing everyone here you are only interested in arguing, not in an intellectually honest debate. Alas, in two sentences my "tiny majority" slips to "roughly half". How convenient for you. I don't like doing this because it seems like yelling but I'm going to put the bold on for this next sentence. Evolution doesn't need a divine hand behind it, but it also doesn't deny one. What seems random and natural can be divinely guided, can't it? The evolutionist doesn't have to believe in any deity, but it's not ruled out. That is the difference you fail to grasp. The only thing that evolution really states is impossible from a creationist view is that the earth was created in 6 literal, 24-hour days. It seemed obvious to me that since God didn't create the sun and moon until the fourth "day", how could we take "day" to mean a literal 24 hour cycle? Light separated the darkness on the first "day" but had no moon or stars to distinguish the cycle. I'm not interested in debating the literalness of the Genesis story here since it involves matters of belief. I merely point out the only real obstacle in the Evo/Creo argument.

Probably because you're in Mokele's house now, brother. Did you forget this was Evolution / Morphology / Exobiology and not Philosophy / Religion?

363 A.D. at the Council of Laodicea to be exact, where the 27 books of the New Testament were canonized. What does this have to do with what most Christians believe? Are you denying that what is now the Catholic Church was the first recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity? Are the US Christians the only ones who count? And must you be active in your religion to be counted? How active? 2.1 billion Christians in the world, 1.1 billion are Catholics. MOST Christians are Catholics. Do you deny the math? Evolution denies nothing with regards to any god. What is denied by evolution is a 6-day world creation. MOST Christians have no problem admitting that when Genesis says "day", it could refer to vast periods of time before the world as we know it was formed. Evolution does not, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, deny them this. Jehovah can still be the creator, and evolutionists may simply assume He's more patient than you give Him credit for.

Saying there is only one universe because the name we place on it means "one" is a poor argument. Another poor argument. You're saying, "If there is only one universe, there can be no others." And how is expanding the realm of possibilities to include multiple universes counterproductive to understanding? Imo, redefinition does not always equal obfuscation.

I think you're referring to introspection rather than psychoanalysis. It is difficult at best to explore your own underlying motives and to come up with effective treatment. We are often deceptive when dealing with ourselves. Normal introspection is healthy and desirable. Trying to understand yourself is good, but we often need an objective party to tell us what may really be going on.

Cell phone use while driving takes your attention away from the road, limits the mobility of your head AND takes one hand off the wheel. Driving drunk is bad as well but you probably don't have as many strikes against you in the event of a dangerous situation. And don't forget that most people love their phones so much they're going to take that extra second to set it down easy if they need to grab the wheel hard instead of getting it out of their hands as quick as possible.

Profanity marks an unresourceful person. Swearing is only truly effective when used on extremely rare occasions, and then it should be used with vigor and imagination. My big turnoff is seeing the look in someone's eye that tells me they've stopped listening to what I'm saying and started thinking about what they're going to say next. Talk about lose the manual! It's like they don't trust themselves to remember or respond naturally so they have to mentally script their next lines.

Wisdom beyond your years, do people say that about you Bettina? It always makes me laugh when someone feels they can make objective judgements on half the human race after they've read "a couple of books". Women are people; varied, individual and complex. There is no one way to treat people. Deal with it.

I don't think it's right for police personnel to have to wait to see a bomb before using lethal measures in cases where a bombing suspect runs from them. However... if they made the decision to kill the man once they wrestled him to the ground before they actually wrestled him to the ground, this was clearly excessive force. Ultimately, there are so many factors we don't know about. When he was on the ground, did Jean Charles de Menezes try to reach in his pockets for his ID? This could easily be misconstrued as an attempt to reach a detonator. Did the officer who fired the shots receive an order from someone else, either from another officer present or perhaps from radio communication from a superior who felt he/she couldn't take chances with a packed train station?

In an argument where you quoted Callipygous, thereby directing your strawmen at him: So you set up a straw man for Callipygous to attack in the guise of minors who are justified in breaking laws because they did not write them.

Oh, perusing now, are we? How... pseudo-intellectual. Peruse your posts where you mention your underage drinking in the same sentence where you declare that you were hassled for no reason and broke no laws other than curfew. It makes even less sense when you repeat it. Choosing to misunderstand is another form of strawman. Do you deny that you were ranting up a storm after a few beers and are now merely focusing your past rage on my moderation of this thread, equating it to the excessive force you once experienced? Parts did relate, but most was, as you admit, over the top, thus the reason for my intervention. Perhaps if you stay you will observe that I try not to debate in posts from a Moderator status. My objections to your red herring tactics were as a member. My objections to your flaming tactics since then are as a Moderator. This is a well moderated debate board. If you prefer a place where decorum is not appreciated, a list of them can be generated for you. Apology accepted; I can relate. Quite the opposite. It takes up my time and sidetracks the entire thread, particularly when the member in question shows no sign of taking the criticism in stride and realizing that they are being an ass. I should have explained the ban. We have a point system which will ensure a temporary ban should you continue to use strawmanning as your fallacy of choice. My consternation knows no bounds.

You brought up underage drinking and other criminal activity to justify a criticism of curfew laws. You brought up underage voting, mental hospitals, assaulting a psychologist and your own psychotic behavior, again to criticize curfews. You've red-herringed and strawmanned your way into a rant and you are derailing this thread with it. Stop or you will start down the road to being banned. Please learn what you are talking about before you quote what I said. I don't like wasting my time with foolishness or overeaction when you quote me with someone else's words.

This stopped being a Psychology topic a while back. Moved to GD.

Evolution doesn't produce half man/half monkeys. This is entirely your creation. I don't think you know very much about the Christian religion, which was created by what is now the Catholic Church. The majority of Christians are, in fact, Catholic, so you're also wrong about what most Christians believe. Already knowing the answer makes evidence tainted by the scientific method. And while there is no struggle to find the answer in science, science alone seems content to retain scepticism while observing experiemt after experiment prove that evolution is the answer. You will, of course, note that evolution does NOT tell us there is no God, though most creationists are under the misconception that it does.

Based on evolution, this has been witnessed in other species many times. That is where you're wrong. There are many things that evolution doesn't tell us and can't answer, but the fact that evolution exists and is true IS a scientific fact. It has been observed over and over in verified experiments. It requires no "belief" the way creationism does. I refer you now to this excellent thread where some of the myths you hold dear can be cleared up. No hocus pocus, no beliefs, just cold hard facts.

SLOW DOWN, STRAWMAN!!!You are dragging a lot of issues into this argument. Remember that the laws are often objective in order to be applied fairly across the board. It is up to the police and the courts to moderate subjectively. Before you drag Martin Luther King Jr out of his grave, just remember who the real culprits are here. Laws in response to criminal action are to punish criminals, not 16-year-olds with enough responsibility to warrant a special permit.

Your speed has improved slightly, but your anticipation of their moves has increased dramatically. It's part practice, part figuring out subconsciously which way they're going to go. What are you doing with the ones you catch? This could solve your protein problems.