Posted: Apr 14, 2012 7:54 pm
by Cito di Pense
Destroyer wrote:
Do you think that anyone reading these posts are confused by the phrase 'chemical impulses' as opposed to chemical signals?

Did you, or did you not, imply to Little idiot that evolution ruled out the possibility of anything other than chemical signals being responsible for what we observe to exist??

I think the words you are searching for are 'matter in motion'. RIP, pl0bs. In the current models, matter is something you get sometime after the quarks condense. Try to keep up.

You use the word 'responsible', but you mean to talk about 'causality'. Causality is a human concept, and it is a damn sight less useful than particle physics is for the construction of models.

What can it mean, "responsible for what we observe to exist"? Imprecise language is the product of imprecise thinking.