open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked Math: Gift from God or Work of Man?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 05:33:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Amarria Black

FTFY. Some of us creationists believe that the planet is billions of years old. And again, taking something as fact because someone else told you so is faith.


so you are a creationist? Funny how the rest of your 'kind' thinks the oposite. Your argument is that something as complex cant have been created by natural selection and evolution, that is have to have some type of creator......but with that argument you shot yourself in the foot as 'god' is even more complex and who created him?Neutral

Icheckjitamarketlol
Posted - 2007.10.05 05:34:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Death Kill
Originally by: Amarria Black

FTFY. Some of us creationists believe that the planet is billions of years old. And again, taking something as fact because someone else told you so is faith.


so you are a creationist? Funny how the rest of your 'kind' thinks the oposite. Your argument is that something as complex cant have been created by natural selection and evolution, that is have to have some type of creator......but with that argument you shot yourself in the foot as 'god' is even more complex and who created him?Neutral


That other God.

Seriously though, the scientific theory also has a hole in it.. the Big Bang theory says a ****ton of matter blew outwards in all directions, and thus the universe started. But where did the matter come from?

The creation of the universe is just not something us humans are equipped to imagine - The creationist story doesn't tell us where God came from, and the Big Bang theory doesn't tell us where the matter that went bang came from.

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 05:41:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Locus Bey
Your really beginning to **** me. Atheism is no more a conclusion of logic and reason than spiritual belief is.



You compare people walking on water, people getting ressurected from the dead and divine intervention with conclusions based on observation and testing.

You are clearly deluded.

Quote:

Your experience of the world, science and 'spirituality' is your experience, not mine. Your arse is so backed up with the belief that modern philosophical logic immediately discounts religious logic and belief that you are just as extreme as the religious zealot.


The very fact that you compare religion and science as somehow equals shows just how little you know about the nature of science. I dont know what mentalist school you went to, and I dont know what insane teachers you had but you should know that in the secular, enlightened world what you say is perceived to be utter stupidity and a pervesion of the progress we as a species has made for the past 100 years.

Quote:

Your **** poor example of creationism and dinosaurs goes in no way to explain current quantum physics exploration, nor its parallels with the more esoteric sciences. Have you read Rumi or Ibn Arabi who talk of evolution 400 years before Darwin? How many years have you explored Tibetan Tantric Buddhism? Not every spiritual logic is predicated on some simple creation myth.



Perhaps you would like to come up with some 'proper' argumetns of creationism then? I eagerly await for you to lay your head on the slab.

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 05:43:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Icheckjitamarketlol


Seriously though, the scientific theory also has a hole in it.. the Big Bang theory says a ****ton of matter blew outwards in all directions, and thus the universe started. But where did the matter come from?

The creation of the universe is just not something us humans are equipped to imagine - The creationist story doesn't tell us where God came from, and the Big Bang theory doesn't tell us where the matter that went bang came from.



All true. But that does mean that its more likaly that it was all created by a heavenly dictator with us in mind?

The god theory is based on 'because it says so in the bible/Koran'.....wich by modern standards isnt very convincing.

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 05:48:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Krulla
True, to a point.

During the dark ages, technology in europe hardly advanced for hundreds of years, when the church dominated Europe. When the Rennaisance came around, technology, and science, started to improve. This is still going on today.

During the dark ages, technology and knowledge didn't improve noticably in a person's lifetime. Today, it improves drastically year by year.


Technology did a faceplant during the dark ages for several reasons. The most important reason was that the Roman Empire fell apart. The removal of that large of a central government causes intense fragmentation, war, and power grabs, all of which lead to the compartmentalization and/or loss of previous knowledge. As knowledge is power, lords and leaders hoarded that knowledge as a weapon to be used against others. The church was just as guilty as the monarchs, as the Vatican was at that point just as interested in gaining power, wealth, and vassals. Again, direct outside intervention preventing the increased accumulation of human knowledge.

It should also be noted that a good portion of the art and science that came from the Renaissance did so under the patronage of the church.

Originally by: Krulla
That's good. I never understood why the Genesis part of the bible cannot be intrepeted to include evolution and such - I mean, they say God created everything in 7 days, but noone said that he didn't tinker around with it after that.

Also, I believe in what scientists tell me not because of faith, but because I've seen what it does for myself. The computer I'm using right now is evidence enough. I have no reason to doubt in established science, as I've seen no evidence to suggest it's not right, and everything I have seen suggests that it is right.

I'm not bashing religion, I have nothing against religious people - I do however despise the Church that subdued mankind's progress for hundreds of years, and still tries to do so. Religion itself is fine, the church is not.


Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm a pretty big basher of organized religion. Pope Innocent III is on my short list of interesting historical figures. Anyone who can wipe several ethnic groups off the map, start two crusades, and pretty much be responsible for the origin of the Inquisition, and yet still go by the nickname "Innocent", has a pair of pretty big brass ones.

You'll note that the people who use the transgressions of religious groups as an argument for Science Uber Alles point mainly at traditional Judeo-Christian Western religions. I've yet to see a single reference to those rabid Taoists or those bloodthirsty Jainists.

flaming phantom
Minmatar
Tyrell Corp
INTERDICTION
Posted - 2007.10.05 05:50:00 - [96]
 

i literally have a lost y religion is horrible, and it shouldnt exist at all...

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 05:53:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Death Kill


so you are a creationist? Funny how the rest of your 'kind' thinks the oposite. Your argument is that something as complex cant have been created by natural selection and evolution, that is have to have some type of creator......but with that argument you shot yourself in the foot as 'god' is even more complex and who created him?Neutral


No idea. I don't have any imperical evidence about said creator-being or beings, natural force, computer, whatever. Therefore I can't extrapolate where he, she, it, they, or * possibly came from. It's quite possible that our creator has a creator. Or that simply by our universe being, we supply our own creator-force.

I'm a creationist. That doesn't mean that I sieze up and quote Genesis whenever you ask a hard question. It just means that there's enough compelling evidence for me to believe that someone or something, somewhere, had a hand in putting the universe in its current state. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why our infinite-timeline universe isn't currently in a state of heat death, or how our finite-timeline universe came to be in absence of external influence.

Locus Bey
Gallente
OCA2
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:00:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Death Kill
Originally by: Locus Bey
Your really beginning to **** me. Atheism is no more a conclusion of logic and reason than spiritual belief is.



You compare people walking on water, people getting ressurected from the dead and divine intervention with conclusions based on observation and testing.

You are clearly deluded.

Quote:

Your experience of the world, science and 'spirituality' is your experience, not mine. Your arse is so backed up with the belief that modern philosophical logic immediately discounts religious logic and belief that you are just as extreme as the religious zealot.


The very fact that you compare religion and science as somehow equals shows just how little you know about the nature of science. I dont know what mentalist school you went to, and I dont know what insane teachers you had but you should know that in the secular, enlightened world what you say is perceived to be utter stupidity and a pervesion of the progress we as a species has made for the past 100 years.

Quote:

Your **** poor example of creationism and dinosaurs goes in no way to explain current quantum physics exploration, nor its parallels with the more esoteric sciences. Have you read Rumi or Ibn Arabi who talk of evolution 400 years before Darwin? How many years have you explored Tibetan Tantric Buddhism? Not every spiritual logic is predicated on some simple creation myth.



Perhaps you would like to come up with some 'proper' argumetns of creationism then? I eagerly await for you to lay your head on the slab.


I can tell by your arrogant reply you have little, if any knowledge of spiritual practice outside of the Christian religion. You also seem to lack any philosophical knowledege, as the arguments I have used sit perfectly fine in the realms of modern philosophy. I gather also you haven't beeen paying attention to quantum physics either else you would understand the reference, and current thought in that area.

Your attempts to reduce my argument to a basic interpretation of the Christian religion is pathetic, and again reinforces your lack of understanding, and inability to argue out of your depth (suck on that one Laughing). I'll try and give more basic references in the future, as it is obvious those I have cited from other religious traditions are not something you are aware of, and thus it is unfair for me to expect you to understand.

I never compared walking on water or any of the other made up assumptions you miraculously produce. Your knowledge of the human condition is apparently fairly robotic, and unaware of much that goes on outside in the big wide world. Just because secular science in the major has failed to investigate doesn't make it false. Where it has investigated, eg. meditational and psychological practice, there have been very interesting discoveries. It will be very interesting the further science goes into physics how much of the exploration has been paralled before in may of the ancient traditions, sufi, yogic and tibetan for example. And your 100 years of secular science means what if an unenlightened ape like yourself sits in his logic bubble unaware of thousand of years of exploration?

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:02:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Amarria Black


I'm a creationist. That doesn't mean that I sieze up and quote Genesis whenever you ask a hard question. It just means that there's enough compelling evidence for me to believe that someone or something, somewhere, had a hand in putting the universe in its current state.


No. It means you twist and turn science into pseudo sceince to fit in the image you have created for yourself that there is a creator that created the vastness of space with us in mind.

Lack of evidence that there is no god, doesnt make his existance anymore likaly.

Quote:

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why our infinite-timeline universe isn't currently in a state of heat death, or how our finite-timeline universe came to be in absence of external influence.



Ask cosmologists, not creationists.

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:08:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Death Kill

No. It means you twist and turn science into pseudo sceince to fit in the image you have created for yourself that there is a creator that created the vastness of space with us in mind.

Lack of evidence that there is no god, doesnt make his existance anymore likaly.


I didn't say anything about the universe being created with us in mind. We very well could be an anomaly. We could be immaterial to the true purpose with which the universe was created.

And I'm not twisting anything. It all goes back to thermodynamics. If entropy holds even remotely true, why do high-order systems exist? One possible answer: outside influence. You're confusing my hypotheses with your standard response of sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "LALALALALALA NOT LISTENING LALALALALA."

Originally by: Death Kill

Ask cosmologists, not creationists.


Not asking creationists. Asking you. Or any reputable cosmologists you can dig up and link.

Oh, and in case I haven't mentioned it today: YOU ARE A TROLL, AND A POOR ONE.

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:11:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Locus Bey


I can tell by your arrogant reply you have little, if any knowledge of spiritual practice outside of the Christian religion. You also seem to lack any philosophical knowledege, as the arguments I have used sit perfectly fine in the realms of modern philosophy. I gather also you haven't beeen paying attention to quantum physics either else you would understand the reference, and current thought in that area.



Sceince and philosophy is two different things. You are confused. If you want to discuss philosophy sometimes start a thread, I would be happy to join.

Quote:

Your attempts to reduce my argument to a basic interpretation of the Christian religion is pathetic, and again reinforces your lack of understanding, and inability to argue out of your depth (suck on that one Laughing)


Pathetic? Reinforces MY lack of understanding? You are the one arguing backed by pseudo-scince and a genuine distortion of pretty much everything. You can label me how you like, but it wont give your backwords theories anymore wind in their sails.


Quote:

I'll try and give more basic references in the future, as it is obvious those I have cited from other religious traditions are not something you are aware of, and thus it is unfair for me to expect you to understand.


You are right. I have big problems understanding how anyone can look at the stars at night and belive it was all created by a dictator with us in mind. You are completely right on that one.

Quote:

I never compared walking on water or any of the other made up assumptions you miraculously produce.


You compare the essence of it.

Quote:

Your knowledge of the human condition is apparently fairly robotic, and unaware of much that goes on outside in the big wide world. Just because secular science in the major has failed to investigate doesn't make it false.


Doesnt make it true either. Why dont you put your money where your mouth is and come up with some actual arguments backed up by some type of evidence?

Quote:

Where it has investigated, eg. meditational and psychological practice, there have been very interesting discoveries.


Healing from prayers, deamons out and all of that? What discoveries, please priovide some sources.


Quote:

It will be very interesting the further science goes into physics how much of the exploration has been paralled before in may of the ancient traditions, sufi, yogic and tibetan for example.


eh....no. I hope for your sake you are not being serious.

Quote:

And your 100 years of secular science means what if an unenlightened ape like yourself sits in his logic bubble unaware of thousand of years of exploration?


I prefer the term primate myself.

This thousand years of exploration you mention, what is it? What do you base it on, are you just like the rest of the loony squad talking sheer nonsense again?

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:13:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: Death Kill on 05/10/2007 06:13:29
Originally by: Amarria Black


I didn't say anything about the universe being created with us in mind. We very well could be an anomaly. We could be immaterial to the true purpose with which the universe was created.



You confuse me. So god created us out of sheer accident? Wont that make all religions irrelevant?

Quote:

.

Oh, and in case I haven't mentioned it today: YOU ARE A TROLL, AND A POOR ONE.


How does this work in favour of creationism? Sure you dont mean 'heretic'?

Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:14:00 - [103]
 

No one is denying that an external 'force' could have had an effect when it came to the beginning of this universe. What they're saying is that there is no plausible reason to believe that it was a sentient being of any form. Such supposition has no evidence, explains nothing and only blocks out rational reasoning about the truth. There are too many caveats involved with a maker that cant and never will be accounted for and the evidence has been mounting since the birth of scientific thought against a maker. Such statements are akin to believing that distances smaller than plank's length are populated by gregarious trolls of the Elwar Clan. This all concerning only a maker and not a predisposed caring maker which exist in a realm of implausibility multiple powers away.

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:18:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: Amarria Black on 05/10/2007 06:19:22
Originally by: Death Kill

You confuse me. So god created us out of sheer accident? Wont that make all religions irrelevant?


Quite possibly, and absolutely. You're confusing creationism with religion. They're associated but not identical. I hold the stance that someone or something had a hand in the current state of affairs. Judeo-Christians believe that this someone is specifically YHWH, who lives in Heaven, and may or may not chill with his mirror-self/progeny Jesus. I merely postulate the what. Religion goes past this and into the who, when, how, and why.

Originally by: Death Kill
How does this work in favour of creationism? Sure you dont mean 'heretic'?


A fact doesn't have to be a supporting fact of a specific stance to be valid. It can stand on its own merit.

Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:25:00 - [105]
 

Quote:
Quite possibly, and absolutely. You're confusing creationism with religion. They're associated but not identical. I hold the stance that someone or something had a hand in the current state of affairs. Judeo-Christians believe that this someone is specifically YHWH, who lives in Heaven, and may or may not chill with his mirror-self/progeny Jesus. I merely postulate the what. Religion goes past this and into the who, when, how, and why.


Creationism is hand in hand with religion because it involved a matter of faith in an god like figure. Your someone or something is a postulate that denotes sentience for some purpose and isn't far away from the implausibility that is the who.

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:31:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Caid Lemant


Creationism is hand in hand with religion because it involved a matter of faith in an god like figure. Your someone or something is a postulate that denotes sentience for some purpose and isn't far away from the implausibility that is the who.


No, you're anthropomorphizing the "creator". It could be an unconscious act. It could be the actions of a non-sentient force. All I'm saying is that the universe was created. Not by what, or how, or why. The evidence I'm giving to support my position is that an infinite-timeline universe should be in a current state of heat death but is not, and that a finite-timeline universe has to have a point of origin at which it came into being.

Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:43:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Amarria Black
No, you're anthropomorphizing the "creator". It could be an unconscious act. It could be the actions of a non-sentient force. All I'm saying is that the universe was created. Not by what, or how, or why. The evidence I'm giving to support my position is that an infinite-timeline universe should be in a current state of heat death but is not, and that a finite-timeline universe has to have a point of origin at which it came into being.


No, you are the one anthropomorphizing by insisting creation. Creation means purpose even if accidental, purpose existed in the act that caused the accident. Non-sentience force? Do you mean a physical law for an expanded view of reality past this universe? What the hell are you doing promoting your view as creationism? Stop throwing around theoretical cosmology as evidence for your stance when you don't even have a grasp of what you're calling yourself. The observed universe has a 'point' of origin and no one is arguing this and a point of origin does not denote creation.


Atama Cardel
Perkone
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:50:00 - [108]
 

Since we're on the topic of the creation of the universe, I just have a couple of questions on the Big Bang theory. First off, this is seriously just me trying to understand what the theory is, ok?

As far as I understand, the theory says that the universe started out as an incredibly dense super heated blob of mass which suddenly fragmented spraying everywhere and immediately afterwards smaller bits of the mass formed quarks which grouped to form electrons, protons, and neutrons, which formed some element, I forget exactly which. This was followed by lots of fusion reactions but couldn't be sustained and eventually formed larger chunks of mass and wound up being our universe. (I'm going from memory so let me know if I got something mixed up)

So I just have a question about it, if the initial fusion reactions couldn't be sustained at the very beginning of the universe when (I think) there would have been the most of amount of energy available before some *could* have turned into mass, how come now we have pockets of mass that have enough energy in them now to sustain a fusion reaction?

I'm sure I'm just missing something obvious but I am generally curious about what the theory states. Of course I'd have more questions on the subject regarding Newton's three laws and how they don't fit in the theory, but I've just been told some weird explanation using quantum mechanics so I won't bother asking again.

My eduction regarding science only includes high school physics and chemistry so far so please don't be too harsh if I missed something in there Embarassed

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:53:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Caid Lemant


No, you are the one anthropomorphizing by insisting creation. Creation means purpose even if accidental, purpose existed in the act that caused the accident. Non-sentience force? Do you mean a physical law for an expanded view of reality past this universe? What the hell are you doing promoting your view as creationism? Stop throwing around theoretical cosmology as evidence for your stance when you don't even have a grasp of what you're calling yourself. The observed universe has a 'point' of origin and no one is arguing this and a point of origin does not denote creation.




Due to the high-order state of the current known universe, it's more probable that the point of origin was a purposeful act than a random one, or an expression of extra-universal physical law. However, I refuse to rule out that it was a natural act instead of a directed one, as this topic is pretty much the boundary where science begins to interface with wild-ass guessing.

So yes, I am a creationist, but I'm more than willing to espouse other universal models that present a more plausable explanation.

Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:55:00 - [110]
 

In short because the physical state of the universe when compared to the physical state of the big bang (and the 'time' following it) are nearly alien to each other. This includes time itself.

Atama Cardel
Perkone
Posted - 2007.10.05 06:59:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Caid Lemant
In short because the physical state of the universe when compared to the physical state of the big bang (and the 'time' following it) are nearly alien to each other. This includes time itself.


So basically it's just that the laws of physics didn't apply in the same way when the universe began?

Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
Posted - 2007.10.05 07:06:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Amarria Black
Due to the high-order state of the current known universe, it's more probable that the point of origin was a purposeful act than a random one, or an expression of extra-universal physical law. However, I refuse to rule out that it was a natural act instead of a directed one, as this topic is pretty much the boundary where science begins to interface with wild-ass guessing.

So yes, I am a creationist, but I'm more than willing to espouse other universal models that present a more plausable explanation.


Don't make statements like this and follow them with an or, especially when following it with rational statement. It isn't 'more probable' and the high-order state you claim as evidence is beyond faulty.

Amarria Black
Clan Anthraxx
Posted - 2007.10.05 07:11:00 - [113]
 

Edited by: Amarria Black on 05/10/2007 07:11:23
Originally by: Caid Lemant
Originally by: Amarria Black
Due to the high-order state of the current known universe, it's more probable that the point of origin was a purposeful act than a random one, or an expression of extra-universal physical law. However, I refuse to rule out that it was a natural act instead of a directed one, as this topic is pretty much the boundary where science begins to interface with wild-ass guessing.

So yes, I am a creationist, but I'm more than willing to espouse other universal models that present a more plausable explanation.


Don't make statements like this and follow them with an or, especially when following it with rational statement. It isn't 'more probable' and the high-order state you claim as evidence is beyond faulty.


Allow me to rephrase. It is more probable that the point of origin was a purposeful act than either a random act or an expression of extra-universal physical law.

And just so I have a frame of reference for my rebuttal, are you arguing from a position of an infinite-timeline reality, or a finite-timeline reality?

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.10.05 07:30:00 - [114]
 

haha hahahahahahah hahahsahahahahaahahah hahahahaahaaahahahahahahahaahahaha

IBTL

religi***s ftl.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.10.05 07:32:00 - [115]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 05/10/2007 07:32:30
Originally by: Atama Cardel
Originally by: Caid Lemant
In short because the physical state of the universe when compared to the physical state of the big bang (and the 'time' following it) are nearly alien to each other. This includes time itself.


So basically it's just that the laws of physics didn't apply in the same way when the universe began?


Read up on Singularities a bit, in those (and other) extreme circumstances the 'laws' of physics turn into 'guidelines' more or less.

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 07:37:00 - [116]
 

Edited by: Death Kill on 05/10/2007 07:38:09
Originally by: Amarria Black


Quite possibly, and absolutely. You're confusing creationism with religion.




The only ones promoting creationism is the religious. You will find no serious biologists or physisists who will support it. Creationism is NOT a common theory, it is only found within the bible belt in the USA.

Quote:

I hold the stance that someone or something had a hand in the current state of affairs. Judeo-Christians believe that this someone is specifically YHWH, who lives in Heaven, and may or may not chill with his mirror-self/progeny Jesus. I merely postulate the what. Religion goes past this and into the who, when, how, and why.


Yes, and its all based on no credible evidence. Its based on eye witnesses, personal revolations and faith.

Imagine how it would be if science took that approach.

Dr. Stephen Hawkins had a private revolation that the earth was in orbit around the sun

Dr. Stephen Hawkins calls on all faithfull Hawkinians to accept the fact that the earth is in orbit around the sun



See where I'm going with this?


Quote:

A fact doesn't have to be a supporting fact of a specific stance to be valid. It can stand on its own merit.


Not in this case. sorry.

Caid Lemant
Cunning Hats
Posted - 2007.10.05 07:39:00 - [117]
 

Quote:
And just so I have a frame of reference for my rebuttal, are you arguing from a position of an infinite-timeline reality, or a finite-timeline reality?


So, I should garner for your responses within specific theoretical boundaries you set, yet don't believe are probable?

Neither option you give is definite enough especially when concerning 'reality'. My stance on the observed universe is present within my previous responses, it's finite. Observed is the key word.

Death Kill
Caldari
SolaR KillerS
UN1CUM
Posted - 2007.10.05 07:40:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: Amarria Black


Due to the high-order state of the current known universe, it's more probable that the point of origin was a purposeful act than a random one



Only troll here is youugh

Cornucopian
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2007.10.05 09:01:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Locus Bey
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Locus Bey


stuff. Good that someone IS defending the religious point of view, otherwise this thread would be boring




hmmm..... you say us scientific types use it as a dogma. This is not true: everyone here is basically basing things on SOME form of the scientific method. I.e. its bull**** until you have tested it and theroized upon it, and can basically 'prove' something. We are ALL open to debate, just show me the truth.

Faith is an entirely different substance than science, since people of science are willing to change their notions of what is true or not true based on new evidence that is shown to them. Faithful people are not in the game for evidence or truth, just for a rag to clutch at which makes them feel less lonely, or give them some sort of purpose.

Dont give me 'you cant prove god doesnt exist' bull****. There is no data either way so it's a fairytale. Prove to me that purple space elephants DONT fly around eating miniature copies of my EVE avatar at lightspeed whilst listening to george michael. PROVE IT. you can't. That doesnt make it true. Mother theresea was very nice, but she isnt divine.

GM.... are you referring to Genetic Manipulation, or GM? Don't regurgitate Next from michael crichton as your new bible against genetix. Corps might misuse technology, but that doesnt make any tech evil. Furthermore, farmers have used selective breeding and splicing since the MIDDLE AGES to improve their crops; basically also a form of genetic modification. Every corp tries for monopoly, that it happens in genetix is

You are advocating, seriously, to NOT test and learn about a technology, because it is untested? can you see the hypocricy here? Can you see how that notion is as repressive as religion as a whole?

You decry what corporations do with the technologies that are discovered, but in the end, man as a whole is a LOT better off than it used to be. The new tech is not the reason for the exploitation of Africa: that has been around since the first white dude set foot on africa, and bribed te local chief to steal people from the next tribe. Africa never had money to lay landlines for phones: until mobile phone tech came to africa and made landlines redundant. Africa doesnt have a good powergrid for the net? no matter because they just launched a laptop which runs on a DYNAMO.

Everyone always focuses on hunger bloated babies in africa, never on the actual progress that is made. I find it offensive that you would try to demonize science and technology as the REASON for africa being poor. It is entirely IGNORANT. Africa is not doing to well for any number of reasons, technology is no major factor.

You want to stop people advancing because tech is untested? When you know damn well that such tech COULD poetentially solve all hunger in africa. how about grain that needs 10 times less water to yield the same crop size? or fields that yield 4 times a year instead of 1?

Everytime you do such things, you make yourself look like a repressive old catholic priest, crying 'BURN THEM AT THE STAKE FOR TRYING TO ADVANCE THE HUMAN RACE'.

Pharma? they save millions upon millions of lives. I dont see you refusing your wife antibiotics for a pneumonia case which would have killed her 50 years ago.

Nukes? the biggest weapon, but also one of the best sources of energy ever discovered.

Genetical research is next holy grail in science. It has the potential to cure dozens of diseases, improve crop yield, stamp out psychological disorders, etc etc etc. we should be testing it MORE than we are doing now. Using stemcells, which can form any cell in the human body.... imagine it. If we were able to use them MORE, we might find a way to replicate them without using foetusses: we could than start researching ways to replace LIMBS.

It's people like you, and religion as a whole that cry FOUL and want people to cry at shadows, clawing at bones in caves.

ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Underworld Protection Agency
South Pole Dancers
Posted - 2007.10.05 09:02:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Starfired
Edited by: Starfired on 04/10/2007 21:39:28
Originally by: Derovius Vaden
Originally by: ReaperOfSly


OK, I can't read the rest of the replies, because I have to flame you RIGHT NOW.

Mathematics is pretty much the ONLY perfect thing in the universe. First of all, I don't see how 3^2 = 9 is flawed. What's wrong with it, for crying out loud? 4^2 is 16, or is that not allowed to happen either? And subtracting a number by 9/10 of itself gives you 1/10 of the number you started with? Well DUH. 10/10 - 9/10 = 1/10, you eejit!

As for e and pi being irrational numbers, I find them to be two of the most PERFECT numbers we have. Mathematics as we know it today would not exist without them. For example, there's the famous equation: e^(i*pi)+1=0. It's just so elegant, the way that the five most important numbers in mathematics: 1, 0, e, i, and pi fit together so immaculately. As you say, e and pi are irrational, and i isn't even a real number. Yet they fit together in a most beautiful equation. Tell me that isn't perfect. Why would you ever want to write out the full decimal expansion of e or pi anyway?


Our understanding of mathematics is based on the notion there there are only 10 distinct digits (0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9), and based on this assumption, we construct a model of our universe. If there is ANY beauty in an equation or mathematical statement, it is due to the way the system is based. If I say that there is now 13 digits, your equations are no longer valid in their original (10 digit) form. Thus, they are system-dependent, and artifical.

A truly beautiful mathematical system would not have logical failures like the value of i; that is, there would be no exceptions to the rules, everything would work out perfectly to some definable value (sqrt of a negative number, anything over 0 would converge to a real value, etc.).


Exactly. Also I would like to state that I was using subtraction to show a flaw in division. a number divided by 9. Because all division is is seeing how many times you can subtract a number before you can no longer subtract that number. Then moving on to the next digit down. 10-9 = 1 or 1/10th the original number. Which is then moved down to the next digit and results in 1/100th the next number, 1/1000th, ect ect. This abillity to return to the same number over and over again without end is a flaw itself. Hence why you have repeating numbers when dividing say 2 by 3. Also the 3^2 isn't a flaw lol. Because 9 is dividable by 3 it suffers from the same flaw & can result in repeating numbers too.

Also e, Pi, & i are completely unable to be described with a standard number system. They have definate values, but the reason they're described as e, Pi, & i instead of a perfect 3.14 is becaues Pi cannot be described by our numbers. I have a rather deep understanding of number that even I don't fully understand how/why. Nothing personal but you're shallow with numbers Reaper, my concepts of why things work are probebly lost to you.

P.S. WTF is up with the reference to "house of the scorpion"?


My understanding of maths is not shallow. I'm a 3rd year university maths student, and in 2 years I will literally be a "master of mathematics". So let's not make it personal, eh?

There is no flaw in the existance of irrational number, or numbers with infinite decimal expansions. Nor is there a problem with having imaginary numbers. Take some time to study the subject before you attack it.

By the way, vaden, maths still works in a 13-base number system. Nothing special about the number 10 Rolling Eyes.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only