Appolinaria

Haha, just because I somewhat vaguely say the "dials are finely tuned" doesn't mean I'm alluding to any particular concept... I would appreciate it if you didn't hinder my argument by defamation with theories I never associated with my beliefs, thanks. by the dials being finely tuned i simply meant EG the atomic structure, the constants, the physical laws, the unwavering forces that allow material form. the canvas that allows the chance of life occurring is specific in itself, empty space itself is not nothing.

The dials are so finely tuned.

The energy of the universe must originate from somewhere and go somewhere. The universe is finite. This is all evidence to me that something is beyond it. Branes colliding, particles coming from nothing... They're still in the realm of space and/or time. But what's responsible for space time, the natural processes, cause and effect?

Is quantum mechanics really illogical? I'm not so sure I agree with that.

The fact that the universe is finite, or that there is an origin, means something put the wheels into motion. Which would be a force. A creative force. Denying one seems unscientific. Space, time? Surely they were created. If I want to splatter a bunch of colors around on paint, or type my own creation up on word, the grounds have to be laid first...

If the universe was crafted, finite, it must have a crafter... This is sensical to me. Whether or not you apply descriptions from an absurd book taken too far is irrelevant. Whether you try to give this crafter human-like attributes because your mind fails to fathom anything else is irrelevant. You're still accepting a creator.

What do you mean, don't make sense? Like what? You cannot tell me an effect without a cause is true and just believe it. That is faith and magic if I've ever seen it.

Rational minds? What the hell is scientific about assuming there's an effect without a cause?

Oh, gosh darned it, silly me. I forgot that in order for a study to be valid it must survey every person on the planet, one by one! A small group that statistically represents the larger is nonsensical.

I find it intriguing that the threat of crackpots surpasses the boundaries of a forum... Been there, done that, in another thread- yes crackpots are a danger, yes we must eliminate them immediately, yes we must use the repetitive tactic of mentioning either the spaghetti monster, ID, unicorns, a rainbow colored beaver wearing a tutu, zebras wearing mascara, mountain goats singing Elton John.... I get it. I think it's honorable how much time the mods put in to keeping the quality of the forum high, responding to every post fairly, etc... But I really don't see the huge threat of crackpots (I think the greatest blow to science by crackpots is how much time you geniuses spend discussing them) . Usually their ideas are blatantly absurd to even a dimwit member like myself, if not, their errors can easily be pointed out by an expert.... And we can move on. Anyway, I think this thread is great. Good job, Swanson. It's a guideline to prevent those who are genuinely not crackpots from being percieved as such. It's actually very kind.

I know it's no big deal to you now but I imagine childhood was very hard, I got teased for everything, and following material in school is difficult enough with normal hearing. I just hated my childhood and I can't imagine the extra difficulty you must have had to deal with. Anyway, I'm glad you spend your time here.

Really?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20021463-10391704.html

Yea but I'd put money down on the fact that close to no chemicals are being released in the majority of instances or that statistic would be less

80 percent of women fake an orgasm half the time, apparently sex is not just solely for chemical release

That is so scary.

The silver cord

It's 11 degrees here, spent the hours of my day that weren't at work recovering from the plague. That only hit me.

Haha! I like around 75 F(24 C) and frequent rain, what's it like there? Not to generalize but Australians seem so pleasant and laid back compared to the New Yorkers I'm used to.

what is this, a center for ants!?

This one I bookmarked a while ago... http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/13/australias-worst-suicide-spot-man-saves-lives-kind-smile-cup-tea/

Yeah, a Peace Prize. That's not a physical science. I'm sure most of the people who win that don't have PhD's. I think Yves Chauvin in 2005, although it was for work in the 70's.

The last Nobel in science to someone without a PhD?

Simon van der Meer. Jack Kilby. The percentage of those who have won Nobels sans PhD is significant enough.

Leave here at once or I shall have you burned at the stake! Rawrrrr!