RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (439) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2268
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,02:39   

That thread is just bursting with tard.  Here are some examples.  They're not taken out of context as much as you might think.

News: "Those who want to be in the know, whether or not there is anything to know, will not know enough not to ask about evidence."

Axel: "Aren’t these the people who speak dismissively – if ever so gently so – at QM as woo-woo?"

Mapou: "How did an obvious crackpot/con-man like Stephen Hawking ever acquire such fame? This is a sad commentary on the status of modern science."

Dr. Dr. William Dembski (quoted by BA77): “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”

Unknown (quoted by BA77): "Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural"

Mapou (comment 11): "Compared to the infinitely large, everything is infinitely small. And compared to the infinitely small, everything is infinitely large. So, if infinity existed, everything would be infinitely large and infinitely small while also being finite at the same time. This is absurd on the face of it."

Mapou (to BA77): "Your reply to my comment @11 is exactly what I expected from you. You would rather believe in lies than change your doctrine. Your doctrine IS your God. You worship your idea of God more than you worship God. That makes you an idolater in my book. Good luck with that."

Mapou: "Please, don’t circumvent my proof against infinity @11 above with other arguments. Either prove me wrong (if you do, I’ll bow down to your superior understanding and apologize for my foolishness) or accept that I am right (in which case, you must bow down to my superior understanding and make amends). Anything else is just useless talk."

[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions.  Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!

Ok, back to the Mathematician wonders about ... thread.]

BA77: "Jaceli123, sorry I’m not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!"

Mapou (to BA77): "Unless you are prepared refute my argument @11 against infinity, everything you write from now on is unimportant to me. In fact, my respect for you has taken a precipitous dive. See you around."

Mapou (to BA77): "Your self-deception is as bold and in-your-face as that of a Jerry Coyne or a Richard Dawkins. But it does not fool me. Why should anybody try to understand something that does not exist? The non-existence of infinity has absolutely nothing to do with materialism of naturalism.

Another thing that bothers me about you is your constant use of this world’s pathological science to prove your Christian faith. Don’t you know that Yahweh’s science makes a mockery of human science? Yahweh and the host of his angels laughs at the stuff you bring up to defend your doctrine. I, too, join them in poking fun at it. Don’t you know that this world’s science is carefully designed to deny God and his glory? But those of you who truly have faith in Yahweh will not have long to wait to see His science manifested in this world and crush the science of this world like one crushes a bug underfoot."

BA77: About a page of Bible quotations skipped because ID is a scientific theory.

Mapou to BA77: "You are indeed a deceiver and you are not to be trusted.

News (to anyone who will help stop this thread from making a laughingstock of ID): "Enough theology in this one thread for a divinity school. Anyone noted how Tegmark’s philosophizing (with a clearly religious turn) can be advanced in science publications (SciAm comes to mind)? Odd that it bothers so few.

Stephen Hawking/No Black Holes, by the way, reached 76 m on Google search."

Chalciss: '“And the truth shall set you free”, that is exactly why reading posts from BA77, Q, KF, VJT and others like them makes us die-hard fans of them and makes us want to read more and more. Kudos!'

Joe: "Querius, I agree with you. Cantor never proved anything wrt infinite sets and he is not God. Not only that there isn’t any utility in saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality.

Cantor’s is more dogma than mathematics."

Mapou: "By the way, those of you who are under the false impression that calculus uses infinity, consider that digital computers routinely solve calculus problems and yet, nothing is more discrete and finite than a computer."

Mapou: "Everything that occurs in the physical universe is being recorded in what I call “the lattice”. It’s a finite universe and a finite lattice."

BA77 (quoted by Mapou): "Perhaps you should call Gregory Chaitin up with your insight that infinity should be stricken from math?"

Mapou (replying to quote above): "I don’t give a rat’s posterior about Gregory Chaitin’s opinion or the world of mathematics and their preeminent mathematicians. I know my priorities. I always write for the simple man or woman. Those are my peers."

BA77 (replying to the "rats posterior" comment): "And yet you expect us to ‘yield to the infinite superiority of your arguments’, and indeed you act like a spoiled child when no one takes your strawman argument seriously, when you yourself don’t take the entire field of mathematics seriously. Someone has an seriously hyper-inflated opinion of their own infallibility on this matter!"

Mapou (to BA77): "Maybe I have a hyper-inflated opinion of my infallibility in this matter but the same can be said about you."

BA77 (to Mapou): "

Mapou, you want a ‘logical refutation’ of your ahem ‘argument’ when you have rejected the entire logical world of mathematics as to having any purchase over your own self-exalted infallible thinking in this matter in the first place? i.e. cart before horse!

To shine a light in a darkened room it is first necessary to, at least, open a window!

There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice."

Mapou (to BA77): " I am not trying to help you at all. I have very little respect for you, especially after this exchange. You’re a typical doctrinairian and I don’t like doctrinairians. I don’t think you’re less fortunate. You have access to the same knowledge sources as I do. That’s the way I feel. And I tell it like I see it."

Mapou: "Cantor was a self-important crackpot and a con artist, IMO. His contribution to society amounts to a disaster, considering the enormous amount of time wasted by the world’s acceptance of infinity as a logical concept. Even after Planck discovered that the universe was discrete, physicists still continue to act as if infinity is a valid concept. It’s painful just to think about it."

KF (to Mapou) "PPS: Your ad hom on one of the most significant mathematicians in history — who, similar to several others suffered bipolar depression — is unworthy and verges on being offensive."

Mapou (all in same comment): "I’m sorry but anybody who legitimizes infinity as a viable concept in science is a crackpot in my view."

"So I don’t care how great a contribution Cantor has made to set theory. His obsession with the legitimacy of infinity and his ability to captivate and deceive the minds of so many generations of thinkers with his crackpottery is unforgivable, IMO."

"PS. The veneration that some people (mostly Catholics, I think) have for the Angelic Doctor (Thomas Aquinas) borders on the idolatrous, IMO. Talk about worshiping doctrine."

[vjtorley thinks: "That's aimed directly at me!"]

KF (striking a blow for Tommy: "PS: I am about as Protestant as they come, and the angelic doctor is one of the greatest minds in the history of Christendom, with Paul, Augustine, Calvin and Wesley up there too in that league — warts and all."

Mapou (to Barb): "I no longer want to discuss this topic. Thanks for the comments."

More tomorrow, I'm sure.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2268
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,02:58   

Sigh!  I should be sleeping, but Sal's caught another live one and is holding him up so we can all see.  It's in the Creationist RA Herrmann's ID theory — the last magic on steroids! thread.

Here are a few highlights:

 
Quote
I was associated with the occult from birth, but in 1946 when I was 12 years old, I suddenly became extremely interested in occult manifestations and simultaneously became, what is sometimes called, a “mental giant” – indeed, a child scientist. I delved into any aspect of the occult that had any meaning for a child of my age. For two or three months, I was a superior telepathist. I once telepathically identified more than forty-five cards out of fifty-two cards from an ordinary deck of playing cards. However, suddenly I lost this particular telepathic ability, I lost the “key” so to speak. Obviously, I was brokenhearted over this state of affairs and began a long search for the lost mechanisms so as to renew this telepathic ability. Moreover, I investigated other occult manifestations.
 
Quote
After some years of effort, I became a well-known research scientist and educator who had been purposefully placed into situations where I could influence and corrupt the minds of the young.
 
Quote
In 1977, my wife brought my budding anti-Christ activities to an end. Without my having any knowledge of her pending actions, during the morning hours of 6 April 1977, my wife correctly removed herself and our children from my immediate influence. At noon, I went to my car in the parking lot of the U. S. Naval Academy and found a short cryptic note on the front seat. It said that in order to protect herself and our children from my depraved behavior, she had moved out of the house and taken the children out of my grasp. I had no idea what this message meant until I reached my house for Evil so clouds your mind that the obvious is often not perceived. Upon entering, I experienced personally one consequence of these vile actions for I found my wife, my children and all of their belongings gone.
 
Quote
Dr. Herrmann became a creationist and went on to become complete a career as a full professor of mathematics at the US Naval Academy.
 
Quote
Dr. Herrmann’s version of these ideas I will term “The Last Magic on Steroids”!

His website and writings are tough to navigate and it is hard to get a coherent picture even after hours reading what he is actually claiming.


Somewhere on the Professor's web site: he complains that www.arxiv.org is censoring him.

I've had all I can take.  And so to bed.

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,04:08   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,00:39)
Dr. Dr. William Dembski (quoted by BA77): “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....5cbaZso

ETA:

Quote
Mapou (comment 11): "Compared to the infinitely large, everything is infinitely small. And compared to the infinitely small, everything is infinitely large. So, if infinity existed, everything would be infinitely large and infinitely small while also being finite at the same time. This is absurd on the face of it."


I prefer this:

Quote

   It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.


--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1216
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,04:12   

Quote
.....during the morning hours of 6 April 1977, my wife correctly removed herself and our children from my immediate influence. At noon, I went to my car....and found a short cryptic note on the front seat. It said that in order to protect herself and our children from my depraved behavior, she had moved out of the house and taken the children out of my grasp.

Take note, Gaulin.

  
Patrick



Posts: 664
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,07:12   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,03:39)
Mapou (replying to quote above): "I don’t give a rat’s posterior about Gregory Chaitin’s opinion or the world of mathematics and their preeminent mathematicians. I know my priorities. I always write for the simple man or woman. Those are my peers."

The simpler the man or woman, the more of a peer.

  
Patrick



Posts: 664
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,07:14   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,03:39)
Mapou: "Cantor was a self-important crackpot and a con artist, IMO. His contribution to society amounts to a disaster, considering the enormous amount of time wasted by the world’s acceptance of infinity as a logical concept. Even after Planck discovered that the universe was discrete, physicists still continue to act as if infinity is a valid concept. It’s painful just to think about it."

I wonder if Mapou and JoeG will announce it on UD when they set up house together.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,07:15   

I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,07:47   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,05:15)
I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.

Dembski is apparently thinking was talking about the limit approaching infinity when the denominator approaches 0.

Edit: correction.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,08:01   

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,07:47)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,05:15)
I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.

Dembski is apparently thinking was talking about the limit approaching infinity when the denominator approaches 0.

Edit: correction.

Quote
At first glance it seems possible to define a/0 by considering the limit of a/b as b approaches 0.
For any positive a, the limit from the right is....

...

These and other similar facts show that the expression 0/0 cannot be well-defined as a limit.


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

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,08:16   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,06:01)
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,07:47)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,05:15)
I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.

Dembski is apparently thinking was talking about the limit approaching infinity when the denominator approaches 0.

Edit: correction.

 
Quote
At first glance it seems possible to define a/0 by considering the limit of a/b as b approaches 0.
For any positive a, the limit from the right is....

...

These and other similar facts show that the expression 0/0 cannot be well-defined as a limit.


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

Um, yeah?  That's what I was talking about.  That the numerator was non-zero was assumed.  That's what Dembski said too.  He may be an IDiot, but he didn't claim dividing by zero equals infinity.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
k.e..



Posts: 5348
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,09:53   

Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,16:16)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,06:01)
 
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,07:47)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,05:15)
I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.

Dembski is apparently thinking was talking about the limit approaching infinity when the denominator approaches 0.

Edit: correction.

 
Quote
At first glance it seems possible to define a/0 by considering the limit of a/b as b approaches 0.
For any positive a, the limit from the right is....

...

These and other similar facts show that the expression 0/0 cannot be well-defined as a limit.


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

Um, yeah?  That's what I was talking about.  That the numerator was non-zero was assumed.  That's what Dembski said too.  He may be an IDiot, but he didn't claim dividing by zero equals infinity.

True but according to Dembski using the limit as it approaches divinity, huminity is crossed by a path within a newfound contract for zero united to resurrect paths of fininity

...or somesuch

Must be in the Gospel of John somewhere.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
stevestory



Posts: 12227
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,10:32   

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 28 2014,23:37)
Thanks for reporting directly from IDiot heaven. But how do you guys protect your brains from being immediately cauterized when you go diving in the UD sea of TARD?

You know how super-deep-sea divers can't breathe normal oxygen, but instead have to submerge themselves in an oxygen-rich fluid, which kinda feels like drowning, but it'll sustain and protect you in absurdly stressful environments?

We do a version of that. The fluid is typically vodka.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,10:34   

the 3rd seal of the Tardpocolypse has been broken, Joe G made a guest posts. Soon, He will be given full author rights and the dogs will dance with cats in the street.

UD is rapidly running out of opportunities to lower its quality. Perhaps get Gaulin over there? Or let Batshit^77 posts?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
JohnW



Posts: 3215
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,15:54   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,00:39)
Mapou: "Please, don’t circumvent my proof against infinity @11 above with other arguments. Either prove me wrong (if you do, I’ll bow down to your superior understanding and apologize for my foolishness) or accept that I am right (in which case, you must bow down to my superior understanding and make amends). Anything else is just useless talk."

[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions.  Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!

You're busted, you are:
Quote
Ok. I cannot let this go without a response. Some dumbass over at antievolution.org who calls itself CeilingCat, wrote the following as a refutation of my argument @11:

Quote
71 Mapou January 30, 2014 at 1:41 pm
[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions. Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!


LOL. CeilingCat has no clue as to what a comparison is. A comparison is a question or test that demands a true or false answer. For example, given the finite values X and Y, we can ask:

X is greater than Y, true or false?

or, within the context of my argument against infinity, if Y is given as an infinitely small value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false?

or, if Y is given as an infinitely large value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely smaller than Y, true or false?

The answer is a resounding YES to both questions. CeilingCat should claw its way back to the ceiling and let grownups take care of grownup business.

(UD link)

This isn't even good math crankery.  It's just boring: "1 x infinity = 2 x infinity" implies "1 = 2", therefore there's no such thing as infinity.

I'd love to see Mapou's first-year algebra grade.  Obviously it would have been an F, but was it just a plain old F, or a great big gold F with knobs on?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,16:17   

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 30 2014,09:53)
 
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,16:16)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,06:01)
   
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 30 2014,07:47)
     
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 30 2014,05:15)
I rember being taught that division by zero is undefined,  rather than infinity. I suppose that is old math.

Dembski is apparently thinking was talking about the limit approaching infinity when the denominator approaches 0.

Edit: correction.

     
Quote
At first glance it seems possible to define a/0 by considering the limit of a/b as b approaches 0.
For any positive a, the limit from the right is....

...

These and other similar facts show that the expression 0/0 cannot be well-defined as a limit.


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

Um, yeah?  That's what I was talking about.  That the numerator was non-zero was assumed.  That's what Dembski said too.  He may be an IDiot, but he didn't claim dividing by zero equals infinity.

True but according to Dembski using the limit as it approaches divinity, huminity is crossed by a path within a newfound contract for zero united to resurrect paths of fininity

...or somesuch

Must be in the Gospel of John somewhere.

And this leads us to the NEWEST ID Spokesperson:



Buzz is perfect in so many ways, but #1 - He's an imaginary spokesperson for an imaginary theory.

Edited by J-Dog on Jan. 30 2014,16:19

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,16:19   

Kirosfocus, unless you think selection is orthogonal to environment,

 
Quote
2. to control the movement or course of (an animal, vehicle, etc) by physical action; steer


Is *exactly* what is happening.

then we have

Quote
Unless RTH intends to personify — not likely — the environment in which an organism lives or dies, reproduces or fails to do so, it cannot “guide” as it is not an agent with a purpose or a knowledge base and skill set.


So Kirosfocus by his own 'reasoning' must invoke  personhood for the rails that guide a train, or gravity that guides the orbits of the planets and stars. Must do better in the teeth  of correction, etc.

Edits for clarity and content.

Edited by Richardthughes on Jan. 30 2014,16:26

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
JohnW



Posts: 3215
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,16:29   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2014,14:19)
Kirosfocus, unless you think selection is orthogonal to environment,

   
Quote
2. to control the movement or course of (an animal, vehicle, etc) by physical action; steer


Is *exactly* what is happening.

then we have

 
Quote
Unless RTH intends to personify — not likely — the environment in which an organism lives or dies, reproduces or fails to do so, it cannot “guide” as it is not an agent with a purpose or a knowledge base and skill set.


So Kirosfocus by his own 'reasoning' must invoke  personhood for the rails that guide a train, or gravity that guides the orbits of the planets and stars. Must do better in the teeth  of correction, etc.

Edits for clarity and content.

This space left blank for Intelligent Falling jokes:














.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,16:31   

He also accuses us of being denizens of Plato's cave. Well, I hate to tell you KF but we're *all* in the cave or we aren't. And the cave may be in Plato's metacave. Regardless, we all still eat our cornflakes with a spoon.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,17:59   

Here's something for KF, in his cave or not:

Quote
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”


Carl Sagan

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1957
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,18:59   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2014,16:19)
Kirosfocus, unless you think selection is orthogonal to environment,

 
Quote
2. to control the movement or course of (an animal, vehicle, etc) by physical action; steer


Is *exactly* what is happening.

then we have

 
Quote
Unless RTH intends to personify — not likely — the environment in which an organism lives or dies, reproduces or fails to do so, it cannot “guide” as it is not an agent with a purpose or a knowledge base and skill set.


So Kirosfocus by his own 'reasoning' must invoke  personhood for the rails that guide a train, or gravity that guides the orbits of the planets and stars. Must do better in the teeth  of correction, etc.

Edits for clarity and content.

I'm fairly certain KF thinks that Jesus does all those things, so personification wouldn't trouble him.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2268
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,20:13   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 30 2014,15:54)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2014,00:39)
Mapou: "Please, don’t circumvent my proof against infinity @11 above with other arguments. Either prove me wrong (if you do, I’ll bow down to your superior understanding and apologize for my foolishness) or accept that I am right (in which case, you must bow down to my superior understanding and make amends). Anything else is just useless talk."

[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall.  Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions.  Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!

You're busted, you are:
     
Quote
Ok. I cannot let this go without a response. Some dumbass over at antievolution.org who calls itself CeilingCat, wrote the following as a refutation of my argument @11:

     
Quote
71 Mapou January 30, 2014 at 1:41 pm
[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall.

Your argument fails in both directions. Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!


LOL. CeilingCat has no clue as to what a comparison is. A comparison is a question or test that demands a true or false answer. For example, given the finite values X and Y, we can ask:

X is greater than Y, true or false?

or, within the context of my argument against infinity, if Y is given as an infinitely small value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false?

or, if Y is given as an infinitely large value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely smaller than Y, true or false?

The answer is a resounding YES to both questions. CeilingCat should claw its way back to the ceiling and let grownups take care of grownup business.

(UD link)

This isn't even good math crankery.  It's just boring: "1 x infinity = 2 x infinity" implies "1 = 2", therefore there's no such thing as infinity.

I'd love to see Mapou's first-year algebra grade.  Obviously it would have been an F, but was it just a plain old F, or a great big gold F with knobs on?

Mapou's IQ is infinitely larger than an infinitely small Y.  True.  It's still 85.
Mapou's IQ is infinitely smaller than an infinitely large Y.  True.  It's still 85.

Bow down and start apologizing, Tardboy!

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2268
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,20:26   

Barry, you spelling challenged, debt collecting ambulance chaser: You can silently ban me  but you can't stop me from posting on your board as long as you let idiots like Mapou use it!

Next time, try banning the dumb shits.

Edited by CeilingCat on Jan. 30 2014,20:28

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,21:55   

Quote
If Y is given as an infinitely small value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false?


If Y is infinitely small ~0, and X is one, then X is ~1 greater than Y.

Quote
X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false?

The answer is a resounding YES


For fuck's sake....

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,22:38   

Hey Mapou,

What number system are you working in?  Obviously not the real numbers, since there are no infinite real numbers.  And what do you mean by "X is infinitely greater than Y"?  How you decide, given X and Y, whether that is true?

Anyway, the hyperreal numbers refute your naive argument.  There are 'infinitely small' and 'infinitely large' hyperreal numbers, and these terms are defined rigorously.  Kairosfocus has even referred to this set on UD.

  
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 30 2014,22:54   

Quote (socle @ Jan. 30 2014,22:38)
Hey Mapou,

What number system are you working in?  Obviously not the real numbers, since there are no infinite real numbers.  And what do you mean by "X is infinitely greater than Y"?  How you decide, given X and Y, whether that is true?

Anyway, the hyperreal numbers refute your naive argument.  There are 'infinitely small' and 'infinitely large' hyperreal numbers, and these terms are defined rigorously.  Kairosfocus has even referred to this set on UD.

stupid me, strike the first paragraph...

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,02:29   

I think this is wrong, but not in the usual amusing and ridiculous sense. Still, it's something I find interesting:

Querius:

Quote
If we have a flat universe, the value for PI is maximized. If the curvature of the universe is extreme, PI can be as small as exactly 2.0000, depending on the size of the circle.


Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2268
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,03:06   

I think so.  Ditto for the angles of a triangle not equaling 180 degrees.

Of course, when attempting a discussion with Mapou, you have to remember that he thinks Einstein needs correcting and motion is impossible.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2268
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,03:11   

A couple of messages ago I referred to Mapou (and, by implication, some of the other UD posters) as a "dumb shit".  

I should not have used such language.  

I apologize to all fertilizer everywhere.

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,03:24   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2014,23:59)
Here's something for KF, in his cave or not:

Quote
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”


Carl Sagan

True, but the trouble with quotes like that is that ID'ists see it as entirely applicable to us. They see us as the ones who have been bamboozled and themselves as the ones who have escaped the charlatans power.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2385
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2014,03:42   

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 31 2014,02:29)
I think this is wrong, but not in the usual amusing and ridiculous sense. Still, it's something I find interesting:

Querius:

     
Quote
If we have a flat universe, the value for PI is maximized. If the curvature of the universe is extreme, PI can be as small as exactly 2.0000, depending on the size of the circle.


Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?

I assume so - it's an easy mistake to make.

BTW, the ratio can be > ? if one wants to be hyperbolic (which makes me wonder whether those extolling the virtues of Pringles are exaggerating).

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
  13151 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (439) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]