nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » A lot of people think that alright, but there seems to be no truth to it and it does not affect oxygen levels in the body much at all. In fact a single deep breath is unlikely to do that. One of the main reasons we think we yawn now is actually to cool down your brain. It causes both an increase of blood to the brain AND a cooling of that blood. And in experiments where they got two groups of people and warmed up the heads of the people in one group.... those people yawned a LOT more than the control group. And when they then COOLED the heads of a group, the hardly yawned at all. The experiments were also repliated in mice where yawning came when their head temperatures increased, and after the yawning a drop in temperature was observed. So yeah, it seems like a natural heat sinking method and nothing to do with oxygen at all.
kneemos wrote: » The few I read showed significant results for telephone telepathy,dog telepathy and telepathy between two people in a trance. Don't know or care if any of it is true or not,but there it is.
mark_jmc wrote: » Donald trump's hair
222233 wrote: » Science can not explain or dispute if people can genuinely be psychic or if they just genuinely think they are psychic
Depp wrote: » Didn't realize they'd scientifically disproven the existence of a higher power?Must've missed that now! nice try though
endacl wrote: » Happily though, the onus is not on anybody to disprove anything. That responsibility lies with those making the absurd claim.
kneemos wrote: » Depends which side you claim to be absurd. This has been done,but the philosophy of a God is very real and has an influence on many people's lives.Something that has a measurable cause and effect is for all intensive porpoises real.
endacl wrote: » What's an intensive porpoise?!?
questionmark? wrote: » Why does the kettle take longer to boil when your watching it? Sneaky ****er!
endacl wrote: » Explained Fairytale, arising from a need to understand and explain the world in the face of limited knowledge of natural phenomenon, and a primitive egocentric worldview.
Steve012 wrote: » Then they came to the conclusion, bugger me there's design everywhere in the universe. Everything has a design, .... hmmm So if there is a design there must of been a designer. That's from science itself. Whatever that designer is ........ who knows..
Dughorm wrote: » I don't see how science would point to God though? Unless you think God is a mathematical equation.
Steve012 wrote: » Agreed, I never said God. who knows what kicked off design, But they did state it really looks like it was designed.
Dughorm wrote: » But sure isn't that the Paley argument just applied to the universe instead? In the way that science doesn't point to God don't see how it takes from it either. Just irrelevant.
Steve012 wrote: » I wouldn't say irrelevant, since 15 years ago science was all about M theory as an theoretical explanation, then moving too design and designer, it takes the "random" out of their equation. I think that's a big leap tbh.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Looks designed and was designed are two different things however. Many scientists openly say things LOOK designed. Even Richard Dawkins who is about as anti theism as it gets, happily says things like the human eye LOOK designed. But I would not make the mistake of reading too much into them saying that because not many of the people who say it looks designed are saying that they actually suspect it was. Remember design implies intent. A goal. We have literally no arguments, evidence data or reasoning on offer that suggest intentional agency behind anything we observe in "creation".
kneemos wrote: » The existance of a God to me doesn't sound any crazier than the existance of the universe.
Steve012 wrote: » Certainly, we don't, that's why they are theories. Interesting all the same.
Dughorm wrote: » Regardless of what's in the equation it's irrelevant in my view. Science is ultra vires when it comes spiritual beings, because science only studies material beings.
Eugene Norman wrote: » You've been reading different science books to me for sure.
Steve012 wrote: » Tis all there to be googled, plenty of info on those theories out there.
Eugene Norman wrote: » Why should we google it. You say it so link it. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proofs. And I bet that any link you provide, if any, won't be mainstream physics.
Steve012 wrote: » Not necessarily, Physics branches out into the unknown all the time. Take CERN for an example.
Dughorm wrote: » So has CERN branched out beyond the material world? News to me
