Sayonara

What he means is that you have phrased the question to offer only two possible explanations, whereas there are other possibilities. That's a false dichotomy: incorrectly offering a choice of only two possible answers.

Yes, and sometimes they ran too.

Well, you can't just say you think it is good, you have to actually think it.

You know, you could say the same about running around in the woods shouting "Lightning bolt, lightning bolt." I think quality of literature counts for a lot, and HP is laughable when compared to LOTR.

It's more to do with what isn't there. For example alcohol is a diuretic and inhibits water reclamation, so you are basically dehydrated. This has some other knock-on effects.

Yeah... this thread's actually about the books.

My post was a link to a thread where the closeness of fungi with plants and animals is being discussed. Go back up and check it out.

Yes, you mentioned that. But it isn't.

When you attempt to communicate in a given environment, you use the conventions of that environment if you wish to be understood. If people are telling you that they cannot understand what you are saying, this is indicative of a problem with your communication skills, not theirs.

You're talking a population on the order of an empire spanning 200 quintillion planets each developed to about the same level as Earth.

Blood chemistry.

Ruuuuubbbbbiissssshhh!!!!! I voted ages ago by the way.

You are rubbish at polls.

If I didn't "enjoy" it does that mean that I disliked it?

Who do you think did the moderator uniforms?

We aren't just going to do your homework for you. You need to tell us which parts you understand and which parts are giving you problems, so that we can help you figure out how to solve it.

Do I?

Yeah, it's almost as if he read my post #9 and drew inspiration from it.

Actually you have 12 points (as in, how many you have been given). The power of 1 point is how much you give other people. What is rep power?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/announcement.php?f=51&a=14 Section 2, rules 3(a) and 3(b).

Except that it's not.

Are you sure you understand what "correlation" means? A correlation is an apparent relationship between two variables; in this case intelligence and degree of sexual deviance. Reaper asked the question "isn't there supposed to be a corollation between high intelligence and sexual deviance?" He is not stating that it is the case, nor has he drawn any conclusions from it. Whether or not it is the case, a visible correlation between intelligence and sexual deviance would only indicate that one seems to vary with the other. In other words, as intelligence goes up, so do the chances of sexual deviance (in a measured population, not in an individual). It doesn't tell you how or why this relationship exists, nor does it have anything to do with people calculating pi while they are having sex. I think as far as this thread goes the question is why do those things make it more enjoyable for some people and not others?

Fungus is closer to animals than plants anyway.

Well, I think Sisyphus raises a very good point and it's something I could have drawn on myself. I suppose really my objection is that this kind of discussion attracts that "our minds aren't built that way" response to neutralise arguments involving infinite values, yet other abstract concepts which have no concrete definition are not treated in this way. That being said, I would be genuinely interested to see someone showing that our brains are not geared towards understanding infinite values, in terms of neural structure and functions. Although I do recognise that the OP talks about God understanding infinity, so it is not strictly relevant whether a human mind can.

This is a bit troubling, because another way of reading it is "I shy away from dealing with issues which contradict my faith". If that is what you meant to say (whether or not you wanted to say it) then I would respectfully suggest that this approach is going to cause you significant grief throughout your life. There is nothing wrong with discarding some of your beliefs in favour of more rational or logically explainable phenomena when those beliefs have just basically been adopted because of "something someone said". It doesn't mean you have to abandon your god/s too. I see this a lot, this "our minds aren't built to think in such terms" thing, and I'd like just once for someone to explain why. Especially in the face of the evidence; that being that we clearly can and do think in those terms. Granted we don't do it on a daily basis while cooking dinner or deciding what to wear, but that's a different argument. If you want to understand an infinite value, then you study maths to the requisite level. Shazzam. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged ...buy one in every colour.