Evolution Sucks! by dougp59

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I was under the impression that 1+1=2 has never been successfully proven.

I used to get my 11th grade math teacher so mad at me.

Q: If you have one pile of sand, and dump another pile of sand on top of that first pile of sand, how many piles of sand do you have?

A: One pile of sand.

Conclusion: 1 + 1 = 1

Okay, I'm being facetious about this. But, I agree with Doug about evoltion. And while I freely admit that I'm a believer in God, I found evolution to be just as unprovable before I became a believer, as I do now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Spinland:
There's plenty of punishment for evil, and it's adjudged and meted out by people, for people, against people. Your silly little made-up god didn't stop Hitler, the combined military might of several countries did.

If there's no God, who's to say what's evil and what's good?

If there's no God, there are no moral absolutes, and the majority of people (or whomever the person is with the biggest stick) decides what is right and wrong, and what is considered horribly "evil" today, could just as easily be considered magnificently "good" tomorrow.

I've seen what is "morally acceptable" change just in my short lifetime. Without God, morals cannot even be consistent, much less absolute.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
And what of you? You strike me as a Christian, as you might have noticed, so I've just picked up a copy of the bible. Tell me, are you loving your enemies? Can one of your enemies, say a Samaritan for those were the enemies of Jesus' people in the time of your Christ, be good? (CLIP)

Your point is well taken, Christhecynic. Being a "Christian" (as Christ describes those who follow Him) doesn't mean a person is perfect. Far from it. We believers in the Lord are sinful, and still struggle with our fallen sinful nature -- and will, for the rest of this life. Sometimes, through His grace, we will momentarily win over it. Most of the times, unfortunately, we rely in our own strengths and fail, and in the process blaspheme our Master.

Please, don't judge our God by we who follow Him. We are broken vessels who need His forgiveness just like everyone else.

Regarding if Stalin repented -- yes, according to the Lord, he would've been forgiven. In our eyes, that may not seem fair. But, we have to realize that we are not God. In God's eyes, we've all sinned, and all deserve punishment. We cannot please God in our strength, or by our own merits.

I once heard it put like this. Let's assume the requirement for life is to jump the ocean. Now, there are undoubtedly some very athletic folks who could jump several meters. Others much less. Some wouldn't be able to jump at all. Many would laugh at the whole concept of jumping the ocean and not even try.

Okay. So who has met the requirement? Has the person who jumped the furthest (but still fell several thousand miles short of the goal) achieved the requirement?

No. Everyone failed.

God's requirement was sinless obedience. We've all failed. But, the Lord came and fully met the requirement, and has graciously offered to take any who would, with Him.

Now, we can try to jump the ocean the best we can. Or we can laugh at the people who are trying to jump the ocean. Or we say that the ocean doesn't even exist, and therefore needn't be jumped. Or we can take the ride on the back of the One who did jump it.

In God's eyes, Salin was a sinner. So am I.

We both equally need His forgiveness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:33 PM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
Your point is well taken, Christhecynic. Being a "Christian" (as Christ describes those who follow Him) doesn't mean a person is perfect.

This I know.

Quote:
Please, don't judge our God by we who follow Him.

Don't worry, it isn't my place to judge God. Not my place to judge people either but I'm hardly perfect (which is, more or less, the point.)

Quote:
In God's eyes, Salin was a sinner. So am I.

We both equally need His forgiveness.

I have to say, I like and respect you a lot more than DOUGP59, he has come across to me as a closed-minded semi-hateful individual, you have not. I have infinite respect for people of faith provided they show respect for others.

-

My point actually was that Stalin would be forgiven, since Doug’s argument was that the punishment of those like him was a valid reason for belief, I was pointing out that Christianity does not advocate the human ideals of punishment because no one is unworthy of redemption.

Though I am not a Christian, at least not in most forms of the word, I do believe that is a very noble belief. More noble than I am, there are some I don't think I can forgive.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 14, 2006 3:11 PM

DREAMTROVE

Chris,

This is the problem with being old, my info is less online-y and all from a while ago, much came from professors, a lot from little articles in science news, or science magazines, journals. I'm sure someone has arranged a good attack site out there, saying some of this stuff. The distribution of matter problem is a big one that just about everyone who isn't a big banger brings up, ie. the makeup of the universe towards the edge is not any different from how it is close up. Everyone takes pretty much Quasars to be young galaxies, and galaxies otherwise to be judged in age by the pronouncement of the arm, but looking out into space we don't see a progression towards strong arms and quasars, but instead the universe seems to exhibit similar age properties all around. But again, I'm totally sick of arguing this. All this info is out there to be found by anyone interested in looking.

It's not 'what I believe,' that's not fair to me, it paints me like some radical theorist. It's what I suspect, based on the data. My general feeling is that the big bang *IS* a simple creation myth. If you leave it, you find out a great deal more, and eventually you come back to that there was a big bang, but it has little to do with what they say it is. The universe, or this portion of it, as a black hole must've started at some point. But it would've started slowly. The reason for rapid expansion is *NOT* that the data supports it, *OR* that the theory lends itself to it. Rapid expansion is a patch to try to cover for the matter distribution problem, but I still think it fails, because of the current expansion that would still be happening.

In short, I have no links for you, because I haven't studied cosmology in years. Back then, I think big bang was pretty much shown to fall way short of the actual data, and my rough guess would be that a detailed study now would reveal that the case has gotten worse. I'm sure it's out there and can be found by anyone reasonably interested in finding it. If I google it and furnish you with links that wouldn't be fair, because then everyone would hold me to those links as not supporting my argument or whatever, when actually my sources weren't links because prior to the early 90s sources didn't come in link form. I don't have time to do this subject justice right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
If there's no God, who's to say what's evil and what's good?

If there's no God, there are no moral absolutes, and the majority of people (or whomever the person is with the biggest stick) decides what is right and wrong, and what is considered horribly "evil" today, could just as easily be considered magnificently "good" tomorrow.

I've seen what is "morally acceptable" change just in my short lifetime. Without God, morals cannot even be consistent, much less absolute.

With God morals aren't consistent. They're seldom good either.

Under god and in gods name we've had some of the worst atrocities the Human race has ever seen. Morals still changed to; otherwise the pope would still be calling for crusades and Inquisitions.

The Qur’an says that Christians and Jews are people of the book, and it is as bad to kill them as it is to kill a follower of Islam. Yet current extremists ignore this completely and say it is gods wish that these people be killed. Real consistent.

Quote:
If there's no God, who's to say what's evil and what's good?

If there is a God who decides who it is that gives us Gods 'will', and who decides how that 'will' should be interpreted.

The Bible was written by people, not God. It contradicts itself and its own Morals on every page. God is infinitely forgiving, but not above a bit of Genocide when the mood takes, but it’s alright, they're not real people, they have a different faith.

Under Gods law people were executed, maimed or imprisoned for life for the heinous crime of stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving family.

If there is a God let God meter out the punishments and forgiveness, because we are obviously woefully unable to understand or enforce Gods will.

DT:
You did bring this back up…

Matter is not moving, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion that threw matter out in all directions. The matter isn’t moving, space-time is expanding, and thus it is perfectly possible for matter to be uniformly distributed. In fact temperature variations (such as the ones seen in the cosmic background) explain why matter would tend to clump together as galaxies, planets, stars etc…

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 5:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If there's no God, who's to say what's evil and what's good? If there's no God, there are no moral absolutes, and the majority of people (or whomever the person is with the biggest stick) decides what is right and wrong, and what is considered horribly "evil" today, could just as easily be considered magnificently "good" tomorrow. I've seen what is "morally acceptable" change just in my short lifetime. Without God, morals cannot even be consistent, much less absolute.

I'm sure many priests justified their morals this way. "Why, if we hold back on our sacrifices/ prayers/ wars for Illapa/ Moloch/ Chac/ Tlaloc/ Yhwh/ Allah/ (god's name here) who knows what will happen? We can't let human judgement interfere with our measure of right and wrong or society will fall apart!"

The point that I'm trying to make is that the biggest driver of evil is not atheism but the MORAL CERTAINTY of religion. ALL religions claim moral certainty, and belief was used to justify everything from sacrificing babies to killing Muslims during the Crusades to 9-11. And because religions are belief systems (cannot be proven) there is absolutely no way to prove that one is right and the others are wrong. I could claim that a six foot white rabbit named Harvey is telling me to sacrifice chickens in my backyard and that is no different from Robertson saying that Sharon suffered a stroke as punishment from god, or prayer warriors storming heaven with pleas to cure a child... or the fanatics of 9-11 killing 3000 people. We all deeply believe we're doing the "right thing".

The fact is that morals have shifted throughout the ages, and the gods have shifted with them to represent the power structure. In fractured tribal societies (like ancient Greece) the gods squabble like sibling rivals, as kingdoms centralize (ancient Egypt) a single god becomes supreme. In ancient civilizations where women had considerable power, the gods are female, and in societies where the power shifted to patriarchy the religion reflects that transition (ancient Sumer: Apsu and Tiamat). Today, we have a strong adherence to the worth of "the individual" and thus we have a religion that values a personal relationship with god.

The only way to create ethics is to take responsibility for them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:08 AM

NOAHINHISCUPS

Evolution in western religion:

Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism circa 18th century ios the world's first monotheistic religion, based on the words of prophet Zoroaster, or Zarathustra, and becomes the first philosophy that would later provide the backbone of Judeo-Christian philosophy and the way of the Eastern Bodhi-Dharma.

Judaism, the basis of Christianity, Samaritanism, and arguably most of Islamic thought, arrives circa 4000 BC. The religion focuses on a single omnipotent creator and emphasises a lifestyle of scholarship, and adherence to dogmatic principles that remain largely unchanged in the modern forms of religious practice.

Christianity forms with the arrival of what is purported to be the savior of mankind, and "Christ's teachings" are recorded, by intermediaries in the new testament of the Bible, often referred to as the gospel. The living words of Christ are suspiciously missing from the text, because it was written, not by eye-witnesses, but by scholars. Oh, and not to mention the fact that Christian experts can't even agree as to the language it was originally printed in.

"I hope your mind is free enough to take a step back from scientific dogma and R-E-A-L-L-Y consider the evolution questions posed here."

What you really mean I think, is "I hope your mind is simple enough to discard hundreds of years of study based on testable theories, and have enough faith to believe in another system of dogmatic ideals based on a series of superstitions and ancient folklore, based on the existence of a savior who is more of a literary figure than a real person, all taken from a book, that was (to quote the most poignant comedian on earth) WRITTEN 2000 YEARS AGO WHEN PEOPLE WERE EVEN DUMBER THAN WE ARE NOW.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:44 AM

CHRISTHECYNIC

Don't forget that the Pope, head of what many (I am not a member of that many) consider to be the very symbol of Christian ignorance and stubborn refusal to accept science, has already said Evolution is true. Actually the Catholics did that last Pope, I have not heard much from the current guy.

An attack on Christianity is hardly a way to support Evolution, an attack on any religion isn't the way to support evolution.

The way to support evolution is with science, not character attacks, no matter how much we may feel they are warranted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
With God morals aren't consistent. They're seldom good either.

God's morals are consistent. Those who follow Him (and/or profess to follow Him) are not.

Anyone can take any passage out of context and get it say just about anything they want it to.
Without going into an entire study of hermeneutics, one has to read the Scripture as a whole, and not snip and chose parts out of it.

While most believers believe that it's all inspired and true, obviously, didactic passages carry more weight than historical narrative, when it comes to what we should and should not do. For example, the multitude of passages where God personally (and very unambiguously) prohibits adultery carrys more weight in determining that adultery is a sin, than a passage from historical narrative (eg. Chronicles, Kings, Samuel, Genesis, etc.) about a biblical character who committed adultery.

And for those who may claim that Jesus changed the laws of the OT, Jesus, Himself clearly stated that He did not come to change the tiniest portion of the Law (in most cases, He had to clarify it after it had been misused by the leaders of the Temple who had bastardized it).

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Under god and in gods name we've had some of the worst atrocities the Human race has ever seen. Morals still changed to; otherwise the pope would still be calling for crusades and Inquisitions.

Again, please don't judge the perfect Creator by the sinners who follow Him (or claim to). Jesus said many will come to Him in the last day and say how they served Him, and He will say He never knew them. Elsewhere: You will know them by their fruits. From such passages, I would assume that apparently not everyone who calls themself a believer may indeed be one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
God's morals are consistent. Those who follow Him (and/or profess to follow Him) are not.

Which god? There are so many.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:25 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm sure there were believers through time and around the globe who followed the rules as best they could, and in need prayed desperately to heal a sick child, or to not be killed in battle, or for good weather.

They could have been praying to Aries or Ra or Mithra or any number of gods modern people dismiss as ridiculous. You see those gods as markers of ignorance and superstition.

But their religion was just as real to them as yours is to you.

Don't you get just a little uneasy thinking of all that faith and belief, sincerity and effort that blew away in the dust?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 15, 2006 1:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cartoon:
God's morals are consistent. Those who follow Him (and/or profess to follow Him) are not.

Then I'm not really sure what your point is. Whether we follow Gods rules or we make our own the end result is the same, they still change down here just as much.

Quote:
Again, please don't judge the perfect Creator by the sinners who follow Him (or claim to). Jesus said many will come to Him in the last day and say how they served Him, and He will say He never knew them. Elsewhere: You will know them by their fruits. From such passages, I would assume that apparently not everyone who calls themself a believer may indeed be one.

Killing of the first born

.

And yeah, I think it's safe to say that not everyone who says they are religious actually follow that religion or understand what it has to say.
But couldn't this passage also say you have to be a Christian to be saved?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:04 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Amerikans have evolved into... what?

Quote:
citizen said:
Killing of the first born

We have 50-million aborticides, since genocide was relegalized by US Supreme Court in 1973.

We have medical doctors genociding 2.5-million Amerikans every year, including 1-million adults, in medical Death Camps, without fear of arrest.

We have a US govt, in collusion with state and local govts, that bombed NY City, Washington DC and New Orleans, without fear of arrest.

We have fed, state and local govts that loot $70-trillion/year from govt "pension funds" (CAFR), without fear of arrest.

We have fed, state and local govts that export millions of jobs and imported 30-million criminal aliens, so far, without fear of arrest.

We rank almost last among Western nations for education and infant mortality.

We have Amerikan sheeple who watch TeeVee, spectator sports, drink alcohol, do CIA drugs, who worship govt, with fear of arrest for everything they do, since everything has been "criminalized".

We have US presidents and other dictators performing "mock" human sacrifice to a 50-foot-tall idol of Molech/Baal/Satan/Lucifer, running around nekked in the woods and holding each others weewees while they pee on the redwoods, and plot world domination, at Bohemian Grove in Monte Rio, California, every Summer Solstice, without fear of arrest.

Undercover videos from inside Bohemian Grove:
www.piratenews.org/video-archive.html

Quote:
"And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD."
-Leviticus 18:21

"Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name. And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:
Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people."
-Leviticus 20:2-5

"The Apocalypse is, to those who receive the 19th Degree, the Apotheosis of that Sublime Faith which aspires to God alone, and despises all the pomps and works of Lucifer. LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darkness! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual, or selfish Souls? Doubt it not!"
-General Albert Pike, Soverign Grand Commander "Jewish" "pope" of Masonic Mafia, "Morals and Dogma - Scottish Rite of Freemasonry" Masonic bible, page 321 (most politicians, "Christian" preachers and "Jewish" rabbis are members of the Masonic Mafia)

"All religions have issued from Kabalah: everything scientific and grand in the dreams of the illuminati is borrowed from Kabalah; all the Masonic associations owe to it their Secrets and Symbols. The Kabalah alone consecrates the alliance of the Universal Reason and the Devine Word."
-General Albert Pike, "Morals and Dogma" page 744

The NIV perverts Jesus Christ into Lucifer! Isaiah 14:14 reveals Satan's grandest desire, "I will be like the most High." And with a little subtil perversion - the NIV in Isaiah 14:12 grants Satan's wish! ISAIAH 14:12: The KJB reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!. . ." The NIV PERversion reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn. . ." The NIV change "Lucifer" to "MORNING STAR". BUT WAIT. . . I thought the Lord Jesus Christ was the MORNING STAR?
www.av1611.org/niv.html

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives,nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world.”
-Charles Darwin

"I killed the ship that killed us! That wasn't very Christian of me."
-Shepherd Book, STM

"You did what was right."
-Mal, STM

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
-Rabbi "Jesus", Mathew 10:34

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
-Rabbi "Jesus", Luke 22:36

"I don't care what you believe, just believe!"
-Shepherd Book, STM

Firefly Serenity Pilot Music Video:
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/01/8310.php

Pirate News TV
Knoxville, Tennessee
Winner Best Music Video
"We Never Went to the Moon"
(no rocket exhaust as Apollo LEM "blasted off" from the "moon")
Los Angeles Music Awards 2005
www.piratenews.org
www.ufoetry.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:25 AM

I'm not sure how you're points link in, but as far as you're signicture picture goes, lol.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:34 PM

HIXIE129

Citizen

If you created the verse, could you please bring back the Firefly series.

Thanks in advance
hixie

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 17, 2006 10:39 PM

I'm afraid not, God must move in mysterious ways

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:40 PM

PROGDEM

Sure it has. Part of the problem here is that people don't seem to be thinking too much about what it takes for X to prove Y. Go to any mathematician with a PhD, and they will show you the proof for things like that. It won't be such as to convince you of the claim 1+1=2 if you were already inclined to beleive it. More in my area of expertise, you can prove that syntactic operations like addition (x therefore x and x) preserve truth, but only by appealing to other syntactic operations. If you are in the business of questioning things like that addition rule, there will be no proof to give you, because you are choosing to not recognize the only tools by which something like a proof is possible. The same thing goes for 1+1=2. If a you get a freshman who thinks that math is all an illusion or a social construct or something, you cannot really convince him if he digs in his heels. But who cares if you do?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 10:55 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
Originally posted by progdem:
More in my area of expertise, you can prove that syntactic operations like addition (x therefore x and x) preserve truth, but only by appealing to other syntactic operations.

Can you explain this sentence in a way that I, someone outside your area of expertise, can understand?

Not being snarky here, I really want to know.

Plus, I expressed doubts in the statement "General mathematics would disprove the unprovable theory (pardon the unintentional bad joke), owing to the simple fact that one plus one does equal two." due to the thirteen year old recollection of a math PhD saying that the proof for 1+1=2 was hundreds of pages long and still highly debated. My recollection could be faulty due to time, poor memory, or even having misunderstood the professor at the time.

Knowledge is sorrow; they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o'er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.
-- Byron

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 20, 2006 2:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

due to the thirteen year old recollection of a math PhD saying that the proof for 1+1=2 was hundreds of pages long and still highly debated. My recollection could be faulty due to time, poor memory, or even having misunderstood the professor at the time.

I've been poking around this thread from time to time over the past little while. Although I have no desire to become involved in the ID debate (I tired of debating with irrational people), as someone who is mathematically inclined, I thought that I'd point out that 1 + 1 = 2 can be proven straight off the set theoretic construction of the natural numbers with one definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_numbers

Using the above, I believe this should work (hopefully I won't embarrass myself

).

We want 1 + 1 = 2

So, since 1 is the successor to 0 by definition,
1 = S(0).

Then,
1 + 1 = 1 + S(0)

But, by definition
1 + S(0) = S(1 + 0)

But, a + 0 = a by definition. So,
S(1 + 0) = S(1)

But, S(1) = 2 by definition.

Thus,
1 + 1 = 2

QED

I hope that sheds some more light on 1 + 1 = 2, as the link earlier in this thread used the Peano axioms. The above is based off the set theoretic construction (aka the standard construction) of the natural numbers.

Either way, 1 + 1 = 2 has been shown. So, could people please stop doubting that it's true please?

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:28 PM

I have one (1) apple. I add(get(+)) one(1) more apple.
How many apples do I have?

Exactly...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I have one (1) apple. I add(get(+)) one(1) more apple.
How many apples do I have?

Exactly...

Um, what?

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:37 PM

Try it. I have one apple. I add one apple, how many apples do I have...

Proof enough no?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Try it. I have one apple. I add one apple, how many apples do I have...

Proof enough no?

Ah, this is indeed true... for apples. But, what about for numbers in general? This is called being mathematically anal

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:40 AM

Since the numbers comprising the real world finite set are symbolic constructs of real world quanitities, and apples are such real world quanitities, it is mere narrow mindness that says you can't prove 1+1=2. You have to ignore the fact that they are symbolic representations of real world things, which is why why they're called real world numbers.

Now if you said -1 + -1 = -2 then you'd have something, since it's impossible, as far as we know, to have negative quantities, so the number are meaningless outside of mathematics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 6:53 AM

SHEPARD

Sorry, but I guess I don't get out much anymore and I live under a rock. Could you possibly enlighten me as to what the heck a "hoopy frood" is?

Read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. And bring a towel.

A few thoughts:

The 'Verse did have an intelligent designer. His name was Joss Whedon, & we all worship him.

In the RL, when people so strongly believe the universe was created by an all powerful being, why are they so arrogant as to always believe it's THEIR omnipowerful being?

I understand this is a hotbutton topic, but I do wish we could conduct our discussion in a civil manner. When we degenerate into denegration and insults, we show that designer or none, we don't come across as very intelligent.

Religion is well explained by the "God of the Gaps" theory. Basically, this states that when people were unclear on why an event or phenomena occured, they credited/blamed a higher power for it. Thus, the god(dess) made the rain come, babies be born, the sun rise and people die for no obvious reason. As humanity's knowledge grew, the gaps closed and the deific interventions grew less numerous. Cosmology, meteorology, gynecology (snicker), biology and the other sciences now explain the 'why' for a large number of previously mysterious occurrences. As our knowledge and understanding grow "God" will become less important in our understanding in the "hard" sciences and instead will focus more on the social science aspects of society, which is what religions were originally conceived to do anyway.

As for gaps, all science is a theory that could be overturned by a single event. Theoretically, the sun could rise in the West tomorrow, fire could cease to burn, and gravity could go on vacation. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'm going to go mix up a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster & rewatch Serenity.

WWJD: What Would Joss Do?

Hell. It's Special.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:10 AM

SHEPARD

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Actually if we follow through on that argument the only thing I can state with certainty is that *I* exist. I think, therefore I am. I cannot prove that you exist any more than I can prove that God exists. All I have is slightly more evidence that you exist, but even that could be self delusion.

Actually, all you have is slightly more evidence that you exist, but that could be a more egotistic self delusion.

Hell. It's Special.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Since the numbers comprising the real world finite set are symbolic constructs of real world quanitities, and apples are such real world quanitities, it is mere narrow mindness that says you can't prove 1+1=2. You have to ignore the fact that they are symbolic representations of real world things, which is why why they're called real world numbers.

Now if you said -1 + -1 = -2 then you'd have something, since it's impossible, as far as we know, to have negative quantities, so the number are meaningless outside of mathematics.

What about negative charge on a battery? What about negative flow of electricity? Negative acceleration? There is a number of things that have negative value in the real world.

And from the wife. Do not put metal things in the frying pan. Or at least I shouldn't... apparently

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:48 AM

Quote:
What about negative charge on a battery? What about negative flow of electricity? Negative acceleration? There is a number of things that have negative value in the real world.

None of things are really negative, that is less than nothing, they are called negative as an opposite to what we call a positive, but they aren't really negative.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

None of things are really negative, that is less than nothing, they are called negative as an opposite to what we call a positive, but they aren't really negative.

The whole point was to find a number that was negative in the real world. I showed that they exist.

The whole point is to abstract beyond quantity. Once you do that, you'll see I'm right.

Please stop thinking in terms of things, objects.

EDIT TO ADD: Math is all about abstraction. This is what I think that you're not seeing.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:45 AM

I'm seeing perfectly fine, those aren't negative numbers in the real world, they aren't something less than 0. They're a further abstraction to make things easier for us to understand.

You can have a negative balance on your account but that doesn't mean that you have negative money, it's an abstraction for showing that you have a positive debt to the bank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:08 AM

@citizen:
To get back on topic.

You really don't seem to understand that you are applying mathematics and not actually doing mathematics. There is a whole world of difference.

Using your apple example only proves that 1 apple plus 1 apple gives you 2 apples. But, what about pears? What about cars? Do we have to always count in terms of apples or something else?

Basically, mathematics is about abstracting beyond the need for having something sitting there in front of you to count.

So, you're not seeing fine.

You're not seeing that proving something mathematically is very different than giving an example. Look any university text on mathematics and you'll see what I mean.

Regarding negative numbers (which is off topic to the discussion of 1 + 1 = 2).

I have shown that negative numbers exist and have meaning in the real world. You are just giving more examples of the application of negative numbers.

What you have to see is that mathematics is beyond example, it is its own thing. And when applying mathematics, there will be different opinions about its interpretation. You interpret these examples in terms of not being able to have negative something. When there actual meaning is what you stated ie owing money.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 10:50 AM

I did this stuff at university as well Sigma, please stop patronising me.

I know that mathematics grew out of trade, meaning that it's origins are in the real world, and it is wholly appropriate to draw comparisions between mathematics and the real world.

Apples, pears, cars, it makes absolutly no difference, and you know it, apples can be a place holder, just like an x in algebra.

You're negative numbers are not really negative in the real world, they're a different way of expressing a wholly positive number that is opposed to another positive number. For the bank example it would be just as valid to say you owe negative money to the bank if you're in credit, or to say that when you're in credit you have positive credit, and when your in debt you have positive debt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I did this stuff at university as well Sigma, please stop patronising me.

Patronising you was not my intent. If you took it that way that I now suggest that you go back and re-read my posts with that in mind. I'm not trying to be snide here, I'm just pointing out that you have not taken my posts as intended. Thus, you have clearly received a message other than I intended.

But, if you did this stuff at university, in all seriousnes, and with all due respect, you should know better. Mathematics as a disipline did historically grow out of a need from the "private sector." But it has become something very different than just counting apples.

Clearly, if you think that 1 apple plus 1 apple equals 2 apples is a proof for 1 + 1 = 2, then either it has been far too long since you've taken a math class/done any actual mathematics, and/or you didn't understand what the prof. was saying, and/or you weren't taught properly and/or... Because, that apple "proof" is no mathematical proof at all.

Mine and the linked proof above are mathematical proofs.

Sorry, but that is just the fact of the matter.

If you don't believe me, just email a math prof. at you local university and ask him/her if your apple "proof" is a rigorous mathematical proof of 1 + 1 = 2. I know that you'll be sorely disappointed.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

I know that mathematics grew out of trade, meaning that it's origins are in the real world, and it is wholly appropriate to draw comparisions between mathematics and the real world.

I'm not saying that it isn't appropriate to draw analogies from the real world to understand the concepts of mathematics. Quite to the contrary, I beleive that it is necessary to do so, as a child's mind isn't developed enough to understand a rigorous mathematical proof as above.

I think that there is a strong possibility that you are confusing the pedagogy of mathematics with mathematics itself.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Apples, pears, cars, it makes absolutly no difference, and you know it, apples can be a place holder, just like an x in algebra.

Prove it.

Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1 something plus another 1 of that something gives you 2 of those somethings.

Prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1 something plus 1 something else, gives you 2 things.

This is where mathematics comes in. It generalizes such things so that we know that the statement that you just made is actually true. If you don't have a rigorous proof, then it might not be true in all cases.

But, because many many people did these things long ago, we know it to be true and take it for granted that it is true now adays.

ie
You can say something is true all you want, but it doesn't make it so. Prove it to me. In mathematics we can do this... in society, maybe not. But that is a different thread all together

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

You're negative numbers are not really negative in the real world, they're a different way of expressing a wholly positive number that is opposed to another positive number. For the bank example it would be just as valid to say you owe negative money to the bank if you're in credit, or to say that when you're in credit you have positive credit, and when your in debt you have positive debt.

I actually stated this. But, you have to understand that this is applied mathematics and not pure mathematics. The proof of 1 + 1 = 2 is pure matematics.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:48 PM

FLETCH2

1+1 doesn't obviously equal 2 in the real world. I add a pile of sand to another pile of sand, how many piles of sand do I have? I have one pile of sand!

There are mathmatical proofs for all kinds of "obvious" things. While it seems 1 +1 is OBVIOUSLY 2 the pure maths proof for it is quite involved as is the one for the number of degrees in a triangle etc.

The question can be asked if this is a nescessary abstraction given that in most real world situations it appears 1 + 1 = 2 but I suppose mathematicians need something to do with their time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 23, 2006 8:15 AM