Skip to comments.
Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists
London Times vis The Statesman (India) ^
| 04 July 2004
| Times of London Editorial
Posted on 07/04/2004 5:19:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,040, 1,041-1,060, 1,061-1,080 ... 1,201-1,207 next last
To: Doctor Stochastic
so them, the theory of theology is sound, but theology is not? (im not trying to be a smart ass, i think i just cleared up alot of trouble i was having with you)
To: MacDorcha
.999... about= 1. But does it equal "1" Exactly?.
"Doctor Stochastic" didn't evade the question. There's no reason for you to be so squeamish.
Or do you think it is a Gödel statement?
To: MacDorcha
I have made no comments about theory of theology nor about theology. In as much as creationism claims to be a science, it fails to rise to the level of a theory. In as much as it claims to be theology, it doesn't belong in a science class. This applies to all versions of creationism; none give methods to distinguish their claims from Last Thursdayism.
1,043
posted on
07/12/2004 9:20:27 PM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Doctor Stochastic
you yourself said in this very line that "theology is not a science" this would be a "comment" you so claim you do not make.
you seem to dispute when i say you don't believe in God, making me feel you are open to the idea, if God was provable. but then you claim it cant be in a science class. in other words; you have no problem with the idea of studying God, you just don't see how it is feasible, so you refuse to study Him in the first place. the claims i offer for my God in relation to science is that, unlike mythos of times past, the Bible does NOT disagree with science, it simply puts it into terms people that have been dead for 3000 years could understand. show me 2 lines in Genesis that could not possibly have been mis-translated into refuting an idea science presents, and i will take back everything i have said this post and appologize for wasting you time.
To: MacDorcha
Something for you to ponder:
you have already stipulated that 3/3=0.999...., and you have ALSO stipulated that 3/3=1.
thus, we have:
0.999... =(3/3)=1
Now, the question for you to think about is what does the transitive property of equivalence relations tell us about the question of whether or not 0.999.... =1.
Another thing to ponder: 0.999... is a non-terminating repeating decimal. That means that there are an infinite number of "9's" to the right of the decimal place. That's what the "..." (ellipses) that are after the last "9" mean. Give some thought on how that bears upon the question I've been asking you.
To: longshadow
1,046
posted on
07/13/2004 3:53:46 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Freeper #26,303, registered since the 20th Century, never suspended, over 183 threads posted.)
To: longshadow
very good, now you have pointed out WHY i have been using the ellipses. i know full well that despite "transitive properties" that 3/3=1=0.999... is not always the same, but is so often indistinguishable, that we simply run with it. as the usefulness is no more diminished than if i gave you "99.99999..." dollars instead of "100" you could use it the same way. this is because we do not use and cannot use a nonterminating numbers in the real world. maybe look at it this way. does 1.000... = 0.999...? this is also looked at in geometry, where graphs often go to either direction on the y-axis, and their curve shows them so close to, and approaching "0" that it is simply drawn that way, even though the two curves never meet on the y-axis. i forget what that kind of graph is called, but i believe it's the y=1/x graph. it will approach 0 for all time, but at what number does 1/x=0? (keeping in mind that the denominator cannot be 0, as it would discontinue the equation.)
To: longshadow
Be careful out there. You are dealing with a man who knows that "the source of gravity is still not entirely understood".
1,048
posted on
07/13/2004 6:09:33 AM PDT
by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: MacDorcha
If you feel that .999... is not equal to 1, then you must be able to exhibit a number between the two of them. The rationals form a dense subset of the real line.
1,049
posted on
07/13/2004 6:12:07 AM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: longshadow
I know all about Number One:
1,050
posted on
07/13/2004 7:48:57 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Number #26,303, registered since the 20th Century, never suspended, over 184 threads posted.)
To: MacDorcha; Doctor Stochastic
i know full well that despite "transitive properties" that 3/3=1=0.999... is not always the same, So, you're saying under SOME conditions 0.999... =1, and under other conditions, it does not =1.
I hate to point this out, but you are beginning to sound an awful lot like John Kerry ("Well, you see Larry, sometimes I support the war, and sometimes I don't....")
0.999.... has an infinite number of "9's" to the right of the decimal place UNDER ALL CONDITIONS and at ALL TIMES. It's exact value isn't wandering around. 0.999... =0.999... under ALL conditions. So how can it equal, and not equal, "1" depending on "circumstances"?
To: PatrickHenry
You probably also have a passing acquaintance with number two.
1,052
posted on
07/13/2004 8:23:34 AM PDT
by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: nightdriver
It is a shame that he hasn't yet evolved past that whole pneumonia thing.
1,053
posted on
07/13/2004 8:25:15 AM PDT
by
RUCKUS INC.
("Wow, what a crapweasel." - Frank_Discussion)
To: js1138
You probably also have a passing acquaintance with number two. Indeed I do.
1,054
posted on
07/13/2004 8:26:00 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Number #26,303, registered since the 20th Century, never suspended, over 184 threads posted.)
To: longshadow
Simple. When you get to the end of the infinite series, you sneak in an extra digit when no one is looking.
1,055
posted on
07/13/2004 8:54:47 AM PDT
by
js1138
(In a minute there is time, for decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. J Forbes Kerry)
To: longshadow
Some people can't count up to one.
1,056
posted on
07/13/2004 9:04:30 AM PDT
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Doctor Stochastic; MacDorcha
If the set of objects you're working with is leaves, and functions result in piles of leaves, then 1 + 1 = 1, when 2 separate piles of leaves are raked into one larger pile of leaves.
Fortunately this has nothing to do with your discussion.
To: Doctor Stochastic; balrog666
To: js1138
When you get to the end of the infinite series, you sneak in an extra digit when no one is looking. To quote Sgt. Hartmann from "Full Metal Jacket":
"You're a sneaky little sh*t; I've got my eye on you!"
;-)
To: PatrickHenry
Yeah, yeah. I've heard that one before: "Give me your gold; gold is worthless where you're going." How do you think I ended up here?
1,060
posted on
07/13/2004 11:00:10 AM PDT
by
Junior
(FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,040, 1,041-1,060, 1,061-1,080 ... 1,201-1,207 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson