pears

What is the texture like? Does it come apart easily when you pull it? Does it have a particular smell (other than lemon juice )

Thank you Ophiolite and Moontanman. I appreciate it.

Swansont is right. The premise (that an infinite number of points cannot be traversed) is incorrect. Therefore the logic of the argument is irrelevant. If the premise were correct and the conclusion false there would be a deductive fallacy. As it is it's just a false premise.

How is defining a position defending it?!! Are people not even allowed to define positions you disagree with now?

Your opinion is irrelevant to my point. I'm not stating that a creator exists but that people who believe in both a natural universe and a creator exist. I was actually agreeing with you. And yet you try to argue with me. Amazing.

It depends how you define those words 'colour', 'texture' etc. If you define them as the experience then yes they only exist in our consciousness. If you define them as the phenomena which cause those experiences then they exist as objective physical reality.

Again it's not personal. It doesn't mean people don't like YOU, just some of your posts

Don't take it personally

So you're trying to be friendly, that's OK but you need to respect people's boundaries and understand they are not necessarily the same as yours Also a public vote may have been more useful than a private one if you were hoping to use this for future reference.

People find it annoying. Perhaps it's a little over-familiar.

And those things are fields? So when energy is in the form of matter the matter is not a thing but rather a manifestation of the properties of the fields associated with fundamental particles?

I think creationist can be a misunderstood term. Generally it's used (I believe) in the sense of miraculous creation and usually in reference to the appearance of life, e.g. young earth creation (a miraculous and literal 6 day creation) but there are also old earth creationists who believe in miraculous intervention at various points over a long period (meaning the earth is old but the initial appearance of life and possibly some or all evolutionary steps were miraculous.) My understanding of the terms is that one can still believe in a creator and a level of creation without being a creationist. E.g. One could believe that nature was created or authored by a creator, but the appearance of life and the development of the universe are all natural processes occuring within and according to that nature. Perhaps this is your position since you mention the big bang. I'm not sure there is a good name for the position, theistic evolutionist perhaps although it probably covers deism as well.

But I think this is how people of faith use it. I might be mistaken but when people say they have faith in God they are not only proclaiming existential belief but also personal trust. I'm not not going to argue over which definition is correct here but that observation was the point I was trying to make. Actually I'm a theist

Is an addiction to the internet necessarily all that different to other behavioural addictions?

I view faith as more than mere belief. For me it is also about trust. For example I have faith in the people I love. I trust them because I know that they have proved trustworthy in the past. I also trust them even though they may have let me down before. There is no guarantee that they will be trustworthy in the future but I put my faith in them anyway. For me it is a similar thing with religion.

For computer programming you could obviously take computing related subjects in high school/college but it's one of those careers where the relevent qualifications aren't the be all and end all (although very helpful). Among my peers computer science/software engineering degrees are most common but also common are those in maths and the sciences e.g. physics, biochemistry and astronomy! None of your stated options would rule out programming as a career. As a basic guide you should go with the subjects you enjoy the most. Also I maybe wouldn't worry too much about specialising right now since you can always specialise later as you get a feel for the subjects you like the best. If you're unsure of your direction it would probably be worth going with a good spread i.e. biology, physics and chemistry. However it does sound like you're leaning more towards the physics and engineering side in which case anatomy/biology wouldn't seem so essential. Why don't you want to take biology or anatomy? Biology is definitely foundational for many fields, medicine, environmental science, pharmacology etc. However if you don't enjoy them and prefer other subjects then I'd say go with your personal preferences. I wouldn't think that a lack of biology/anatomy would really hold you back in those fields you've listed. The only subjects I can see as absolutely essential for you are physics and maths. How many courses are you allowed to take? How many science courses do you want to take? (I'm from the UK so I'm not familiar with the US education system, assuming that's where you're from )

There are some interesting responses in another thread on symmetry here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78635-why-are-human-beings-symmetric-along-our-length/#entry766627

What are your aspirations and interests? What you ought to take really depends on that.

Is the issue that you're trying to picture them? Don't do that!

http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/functions/

What exactly are you having trouble with? Do you have an example?

Obsessive compilsive cleaners? What cracked me up about that programme was the only levels they were happy with were those suitable for food preparation in a hospital and were squealing when the inside of their shoes didn't make the grade. Oh well I guess it's not called a disorder for nothing.

Scary I fear the populace has been cried wolf to by sensationalist news items on this in the past so they're easily swayed by the sceptics. When you say I assume you mean politicians? Do you think politicians will only listen if the masses show a concern (rather than mainly the pressure groups)? Also what are the solution(s)? I asume reducing carbon emissions is the only answer? Should we all be boycotting traditional energy supplies in favour of green energy? What are your thoughts on nuclear power?

I agree also.

I agree. I believe we are all born with a sense of morality. We don't always listen to it however. Perhaps religions sometimes help people to listen.