pears

You'll need to be a bit more specific than that

Well thanks for your vote of confidence in the topic, however I do think my original question somewhat flawed now. I hadn't pictured physical reality as something seamless, more like discrete blocks that fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle. It's definitely something for me to ponder on

You mean in thread? You can respond to moderator warnings just not in the thread they appear in (so as not to further derail the thread) I think you can PM or use the report post button on the moderation post to reply offline.

Oh that's interesting! I'd never heard that before (that brain neurons don't get replaced)

Oh OK thanks. My understanding of physics is very much in the learning phase. Thanks for your responses P.S. Please feel free to close the thread if you want to as I think you've answered my question and there probably isn't much else to say on it.

Oh It wasn't supposed to be an argument about fine tuning but about whether the set of all fundamental physical phenomena is greater than the set of physical phenomena required for life. I guess probably not many people will be interested in responding then.

So I wasn't sure where to post this question, and it's more of a silly pondering than a serious speculation, but, I've often wondered if all known phenonmena in the universe are required for the existence of life. For example it's the electrons in the atom that give rise to the chemical phenomena on which life is based, it's gravity that causes the production of carbon in stars etc. For example neutrinos. What are they? Do they interact with anything and are they truly fundamental or just another aspect of some other phenomena? Please forgive my ignorance of the subject and the probably silliness of the question. I realize the question is rather broad and vague. I am looking for obvious flaws in the idea so I can see whether it's worthwhile pondering on it (for my own amusement) or not. Thanks

All of the above plus keeping busy. Planning to do things and carrying out those plans.

Prime cause of everything known or not I think is what he is saying.

I wasn't billing it as such. The thread isn't about that. It's about christians believing in creationism and rejecting evolution. I hope the site may be of some help in resolving some conflict within the OPs family.

You might find it helpful to point them at http://www.biologos.org/. It's a christian site that supports mainstream science including mainstream evolution theory.

To be both mindless AND cruel seems rather contradictory. From the cat's point of view it is just following instincts which also happen to result in it's survival. It's not cruel *because* it is mindless. Cruelty is a distinctly human trait precisely because we have minds that know what cruelty is.

Yes. Whenever you call someone a crackpot, for whatever reason, you are labelling the whole person rather than the specific aspects of their beliefs you disagree with. Generalising a person in that way is never helpful IMO. If people have 'crackpot' beliefs then maybe they believe them because they have been indoctrinated that way. Do you want to help them or simply dismiss them? Even if they won't be helped I don't think there's ever a need to label a whole person with a derogatory label because of one or a number of their attributes.

http://www.boredpanda.com/snowflake-macro-photography-diy-alexey-kljatov/ Apologies if this has been seen/posted already.

I realized I weighed nothing on a milligram scale and I was like, 0mg

Q. Why did the chicken cross the mobius strip? A. To get to the same side.

Welcome on board mad-scientist

PM him with your concerns?

Q: What do you do with a sick chemist? A: If you can't helium, and you can't curium, then you might as well barium

It just means the last details. (The phrase is taken from painting where you put on the last touches of paint)

I'm guessing it's this thread? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80441-increasing-intelligence-and-capability-to-learn/

I've already explained why I find pure logic useful. I'm not sure why you want me to explain it using pure logic though. I find maths useful but I wouldn't want to explain why using maths alone. I find pots and pans useful. I wouldn't want to explain why through the medium of pots and pans alone. I have never claimed that you can prove pure logic is useful through pure logic alone so I am not sure why you keep making this demand. You claimed nobody cares about pure logic. I stated they do which is fairly obvious given that universities run courses on it, people write books about it, people buy those books. Therefore I suggest there is good evidence to show that people do care about it. Why don't you support your claim that nobody cares about pure logic? Good luck. Now please stop making silly demands. If you still cannot (or perhaps as is more likely, will not) understand what I'm saying, well it's too bad. I have more pressing things to do than engage with you in this silly conversation. Goodbye.

What makes you think I don't know that? Where have I said otherwise?

So I'm accused of trolling for defending logic on a science forum? Amazing! It seems to me you're actually accusing me of trolling for disagreeing with something you say. Yes. It's an assumption. In logic an assumption is a given. Logic is not used to prove it. Why must I prove this assumption? Asking someone to prove an assumption that has been stated as an assumption seems kind of an oxymoronic to me. Why must I prove that people exist in order to defend logic? Logic is a mathematical discipline. It is useful in determining truth relationships between statements even regardless of the value of those statements. How is saying that logic is useful to help unicorns cook leprachauns ANYTHING like saying logic is useful in dissecting the things people say?? Does this help? Given that people exist and say things, logic is helpful in dissecting what they say. Can you understand this sentence now? Was the sentence supposed to have been expressed in pure mathematical logic notation or something before you could understand it? Because that kind of contradicts your previous post that you don't care about logic. You have to trust observation. The observation is assumed to represent reality. I am glad we can agree. What am I denying? Why are you asking me this?

Presumably it's a muscle that's exercised all the time when we look at things at different distances. Although I suppose if you stare at a computer screen or TV all day it might not be.