Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

generalgrog wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

This isn't true, many aspects of physics bend or totally ignore the logical progression of time whereas being a square and being a circle are just two abstract human definitions of shape.

Prove it.

GG

I see someone is unfamiliar with non-Euclidean geometry.

alarmingrick wrote:

i get what you are saying, but i don't see how everyone is saying creationism is bad. they're saying (well, i'm saying anyway) they think the referenced story in the beginning
was crazy. T-rex eating coconuts is crazy. not the complete notion of creationism. i'm not convinced by either side completely. but, imho, the evolution side has more evidence
and makes more sense.

The problem with the whole article is that the coconut thing is entirely hearsay. digitaljournal said Some guide said it and its on the internet so it must be true.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

This isn't true, many aspects of physics bend or totally ignore the logical progression of time whereas being a square and being a circle are just two abstract human definitions of shape.

Prove it.

GG

I see someone is unfamiliar with non-Euclidean geometry.

He said physics..if we are talking theoretical physics I would like to know what presupositions they have come up with to claim that there are square circles and round squares. I mean besides C.S. Lewis.

GG

It is just an expression Rick.

As in "I volunteered to pick up litter. it rained cat's and dogs and I got a cold for my sins."

generalgrog wrote:
He said physics..if we are talking theoretical physics I would like to know what presupositions they have come up with to claim that there are square circles and round squares. I mean besides C.S. Lewis.

Uh, that is physics. General relativity depends on non-Euclidean geometry, and GPS depends on general relativity.

Actually it would be better to go picking up rubbish in the rain than wasting time on this thread.

And God so loved the world He gave us his self as a man so we could argue the toss instead of living a life.

nighty night sleep tight all.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
He said physics..if we are talking theoretical physics I would like to know what presupositions they have come up with to claim that there are square circles and round squares. I mean besides C.S. Lewis.

Uh, that is physics. General relativity depends on non-Euclidean geometry, and GPS depends on general relativity.

So much for proof.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:There is no such thing as the number green. So no it was not a good point, it was nonsense.

Yes there is.

520–570 nm and ~575–525 THz

Funny.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
So much for proof.

Really?

In Euclidean geometry a triangle is a 3-sided polygon with angles totaling no more than 180 degrees.

In non-Euclidean geometry a triangle is a 3-sided polygon with angles totaling a potentially indefinite amount.

The common idea is the presence of 3 sides.

You want proof that there exist square triangles? No problem. Any given square can be modeled as a series of triangles, and therefore as a single triangle, insofar as one only takes note of 3 vertices in the course of "unpacking" the square. This is literally why the formula for the area of a triangle works.

generalgrog wrote:
Funny.

No, I didn't make the comment to be funny. I made the comment to illustrate why your statement was nonsense.

Wanting to know the scale of the Ark they built as well as it's size.

Dinosaurs and people, living together in harmony? What nonsense.

As for proof:

It's sedimentary, my dear Watson.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
So much for proof.

Really?

In Euclidean geometry a triangle is a 3-sided polygon with angles totaling no more than 180 degrees.

In non-Euclidean geometry a triangle is a 3-sided polygon with angles totaling a potentially indefinite amount.

The common idea is the presence of 3 sides.

You want proof that there exist square triangles? No problem. Any given square can be modeled as a series of triangles, and therefore as a single triangle, insofar as one only takes note of 3 vertices in the course of "unpacking" the square. This is literally why the formula for the area of a triangle works.

180*

corpsesarefun wrote:
180*

Fixed.

Typos are proof that God put the 9 too close to the 8.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:It is just an expression Rick.

As in "I volunteered to pick up litter. it rained cat's and dogs and I got a cold for my sins."

What is just an expression? was i confused?

Ah, but if there is no such thing as the number green, how do we know numbers even exist?

No seriously, do number exist, or are they just a human perception.

Let's say there are five trees outside of your house.

If nobody lived there, and there was no one to count the trees, would there still be 5 of them? Does nature care what measurement of individual units we use.

What about time? Do hours and minutes really exist? Or are they just a human concept, invented to measure the sequence and duration of event?

Mike Noble wrote:Ah, but if there is no such thing as the number green, how do we know numbers even exist?

No seriously, do number exist, or are they just a human perception.

Let's say there are five trees outside of your house.

If nobody lived there, and there was no one to count the trees, would there still be 5 of them? Does nature care what measurement of individual units we use.

What about time? Do hours and minutes really exist? Or are they just a human concept, invented to measure the sequence and duration of event?

Numbers are totally human perception, we invented them and the rest of maths to allow us to quantify amounts of things.

Mike Noble wrote:What about time? Do hours and minutes really exist? Or are they just a human concept, invented to measure the sequence and duration of event?

Time. Time is an Artificial Construct. An idea based on the theory that events occur in a linear direction, at all times. Always forward, never back. Is the concept of time correct? Is time relevant?

Anyway..... The only reason I hate the Catholics near me is because I live in a small town: You know, it's full of those "I'm holier than thou because I go to church on sunday, but you do too, but that doesn't matter, because I'm holier than thou" and it's fething annoying.

And that girl I asked out called me a demon because I am not as churchly as her......

dogma wrote:

No, I didn't make the comment to be funny. I made the comment to illustrate why your statement was nonsense.

Your comment was extremely funny because you are using a mathematical measurement of color to try and say that color and numbers are the same the thing.

Again your a very funny guy.

GG

Slarg232 wrote:And that girl I asked out called me a demon because I am not as churchly as her......

I'm sure speaking in tongues didn't help you either. Maybe next time you need to use actions rather than words? Walk up to her and drop your pants. If that doesn't work, then she's probably too high-and-mighty to be dating the average joe.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:

No, I didn't make the comment to be funny. I made the comment to illustrate why your statement was nonsense.

Your comment was extremely funny because you are using a mathematical measurement of color to try and say that color and numbers are the same the thing.

Again your a very funny guy.

GG

Colour is a perception of certain frequencies/wavelengths (as c is constant this is interchangeable) of light which is a series of photons (the carriers for the electromagnetic force) and is just as abstract and meaningless as numbers and time.

Slarg232 wrote: And that girl I asked out called me a demon because I am not as churchly as her......

sure the horns didn't help either, you deamon!

god, i so know what you mean. not sure where you live, but i'm in the beltbuckle of the "Bible Belt"!

generalgrog wrote:[Your comment was extremely funny because you are using a mathematical measurement of color to try and say that color and numbers are the same the thing

Well, colour is our perception of certain wavelengths of energy (which can be quantified and labeled using numbers or "words"). The interesting thing is that not everyone will perceive them the same way even if the wavelengths are the same which means that numbers are more "accurate" than "colours".

What color is the number 2?

GG

generalgrog wrote:What color is the number 2?

GG

Depends if you experience Synesthesia or not, for me 2 is yellow and mondays are red.

generalgrog wrote:
Your comment was extremely funny because you are using a mathematical measurement of color to try and say that color and numbers are the same the thing.

Again your a very funny guy.

No, you asked for the "number Green".

I gave it to you.

I never said they were the same thing, nor should you pretend that the presence of difference is proof of God.

generalgrog wrote:What color is the number 2?

GG

Ultraviolet.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Your comment was extremely funny because you are using a mathematical measurement of color to try and say that color and numbers are the same the thing.

Again your a very funny guy.

No, you asked for the "number Green".

I gave it to you.

I never said they were the same thing, nor should you pretend that the presence of difference is proof of God.
.

And you still failed.

The color green has no number. Yes it has a wavelength. Again.. to the people watching that might get confused by your attempt at humor, it's not he same thing. Stop playing games.

GG

generalgrog wrote:And yeahh believing that order and intelligence are a product of totally random unguided processes is totally more believable than to believe that a Creator designed it...yeah it's soooo much more believable....

GG

The real face palm is your wilful distortion of evolutionary theory to make out that it claims that it is a 'random' process. Evolution is a much more complex and logical process than that, it isn't about random chance. To portray it as such to make any sort of debating point is either done through ignorance or an attempt to be disingenuous. I would hope the former, because you have a very narrow world view based on unnecessarily literal readings of the bible given previous discussions on things like homosexuality and the like.

If you were to weigh up things on the basis of evidence alone you'd have to conclude that even if evolutionary theory is not complete it is a lot closer to reality than a literal reading of the bible. Creationism is demonstrably wrong, we can prove the geological age of things, we know that dinosaurs and man never coexisted. It's just a sad joke to claim otherwise.

I'm a professional biologist so you will claim I will clearly side with science. But the fact remains that science does not succeed over religion due to a popularity contest, but because it stands on its own merits grounded in evidence. Evolutionary theory is constructed on the basis of well established science, it is a theory designed to best fit the facts of the natural world. Creationism largely denies the reality of this evidence claiming that the Earth isn't the age it really is or make grossly inappropriate re-interpretations of the fossil record designed to primarily fit religious readings rather than taking an approach that could be described as demonstrating good scientific practice.

For instance, the suggestion that Tyrannosaurs ever ate plants as their main diet is preposterous. To claim their razor sharp serrated teeth were used for anything other than supporting a meat diet is an absurdity. The only reason why someone with today's science would claim otherwise is to fit a plainly obvious religious agenda. Anyone with that kind of bias in their approach to science is not a scientist at all.

generalgrog wrote:And you still failed.

The color green has no number. Yes it has a wavelength. Again.. to the people watching that might get confused by your attempt at humor, it's not he same thing. Stop playing games.

Wavelength is a number.

I'm also not joking. Though it does interest me that you can only process my comments that way.

I mean, if you want to talk about number theory then I'm more than willing to do so. I'm betting that you aren't, but you're free to prove me wrong.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

generalgrog wrote:And yeahh believing that order and intelligence are a product of totally random unguided processes is totally more believable than to believe that a Creator designed it...yeah it's soooo much more believable....

GG

The real face palm is your wilful distortion of evolutionary theory to make out that it claims that it is a 'random' process. Evolution is a much more complex and logical process than that, it isn't about random chance. To portray it as such to make any sort of debating point is either done through ignorance or an attempt to be disingenuous. I would hope the former, because you have a very narrow world view based on unnecessarily literal readings of the bible given previous discussions on things like homosexuality and the like.

If you were to weigh up things on the basis of evidence alone you'd have to conclude that even if evolutionary theory is not complete it is a lot closer to reality than a literal reading of the bible. Creationism is demonstrably wrong, we can prove the geological age of things, we know that dinosaurs and man never coexisted. It's just a sad joke to claim otherwise.

I'm a professional biologist so you will claim I will clearly side with science. But the fact remains that science does not succeed over religion due to a popularity contest, but because it stands on its own merits grounded in evidence. Evolutionary theory is constructed on the basis of well established science, it is a theory designed to best fit the facts of the natural world. Creationism largely denies the reality of this evidence claiming that the Earth isn't the age it really is or make grossly inappropriate re-interpretations of the fossil record designed to primarily fit religious readings rather than taking an approach that could be described as demonstrating good scientific practice.

For instance, the suggestion that Tyrannosaurs ever ate plants as their main diet is preposterous. To claim their razor sharp serrated teeth were used for anything other than eating meat is an absurdity. The only reason why someone with today's science would claim otherwise is to fit a plainly obvious religious agenda. Anyone with that kind of bias in their approach to science is not a scientist at all.

Sorry..Howard the only thing you have proven is that you believe in your set of presuppositions based on uniformitarianism. Of course there is plenty of evidence for evolution IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.

There is plenty of evidence for Creation IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.

There are two world views at work here.

GG

Howard A Treesong wrote:But the fact remains that science does not succeed over religion due to a popularity contest, but because it stands on its own merits grounded in evidence.

In other words, it has utility. It grants its practitioners "powers" over the world they inhabit.

Its like those monks that can survive despite improbably hostile conditions*.






*But not really. Feynman might be a zombie, but he still can't tackle a string.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:And you still failed.

The color green has no number. Yes it has a wavelength. Again.. to the people watching that might get confused by your attempt at humor, it's not he same thing. Stop playing games.

Wavelength is a number.

I'm also not joking. Though it does interest me that you can only process my comments that way.

wavelength is not a number. There is a number that represents wavelength(not the same thing as wavelength being a number). Thats like saying if I have 5 soda cans, 5 soda cans is a number. And 5 soda cans = the number 5.

Again... I am losing confidence in your ability to think logically. I'm beginning to question your claim of being a logistician now.


GG

generalgrog wrote:There is plenty of evidence for Creation IF you believe the assumptions behind the evidence.

Exactly what evidence does Creationism have going for it? A strong belief that faith trumps reason isn't exactly evidence.

Sounding intelligent is all good and well, but when what you are selling is so obviously ridiculous, polishing a turd comes to mind.

While they are at it, I would like a recreation of a pre-round-earth human settlement and a geocentric model solar system on display too, maybe a cute video of the time lapse transition for the sun to its present state in the middle of the solar system from where it was in biblical times. Maybe another video showing the geological changes that occured to make the world round today too. Hey what else you got to blow $25 million on? Creationist biology, astronomy, anthropology, geology... all the science the kids will ever need!

I would like to teach all of their kids the truth of Where the Wild Things Are too.
"But that's just a storybook!"
"yup."