Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - [][][]

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Reason for Religion
« on: January 24, 2009, 10:51:23 AM »
Technically the difference is the amount. The Y chromosome I believe has basically the same genetic code just a lot less.

The Y and X have completely different genes except for some short "psuedoautosomal" regions, which have the same base pair sequences and allow the two to match up in meiosis (like the autosomes). The Y chromosome itself codes a minute number of genes(compared to the rest) , but you wont find many homologous genes on the X.

2
The Lounge / Re: Would you vote for a man who had ever used cocaine?
« on: November 08, 2008, 09:16:26 PM »
Is it too much to ask to have a president who doesn't do coke?

Yes. And I do enjoy the insinuation that Obama still does coke.  ;D

3
The Lounge / Re: Would you vote for a man who had ever used cocaine?
« on: November 08, 2008, 09:08:46 PM »
Who said anything about crack cocaine? The Obama supposedly used power cocaine (cocaine HCl). His own book reads thus:

"maybe a little blow when you could afford it".

Have you been watching too many "Cops" episodes, Tom?

Before anyone mentions it: The difference between the forms of cocaine is not inconsequential.

Blow: For classy rich people, like your lawyer.
Crack: For poor nigras, apparently.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Proof that God indeed exists
« on: October 01, 2008, 12:37:37 PM »
I don't get it, some random website proves it is an angel? Is that using any recognized translation?

I know you like to be contradictory Raist, but please at least put some time into your post.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Proof that God indeed exists
« on: October 01, 2008, 12:03:12 PM »
Thats beside the point, I think.  The passage says he saw he couldn't (pretty universally), not that he decided he wouldn't.

But anyways, I'm interested about the angel deal, so far the only translation I have been able to find that says God wrestled with an angel is one of the latin vulgate, I wonder if there are any others.

It seems quite unlikely to me, especially considering this passage also:

Quote
So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared. Gen 32:30 CEV

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Proof that God indeed exists
« on: October 01, 2008, 11:35:35 AM »
You guys have got to be kidding me, the OT God couldn't even wrestle down Jacob. I wonder if there is an event like this paralleled in the Koran.

Quote
So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak.

When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man

Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." (Gen 32:24-26 NIV

If there really was a God, the OT would be an insult to him.

angels /= god

Huh? I think you have something mixed up Raist, Jacob was wrestling with God in the Bible, not with an angel. Read the that part of Genesis if you want.

Edit: This line in particular:

Quote
Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome. Gen 32:28  NIV

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Proof that God indeed exists
« on: October 01, 2008, 05:27:39 AM »
You guys have got to be kidding me, the OT God couldn't even wrestle down Jacob. I wonder if there is an event like this paralleled in the Koran.

Quote
So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak.

When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man

Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." (Gen 32:24-26 NIV

If there really was a God, the OT would be an insult to him.

8
This creationist argument has always struck me as hilarious. I mean, consider for a moment that the Bible is not the infallible word of God (as there is no proof that it is), in that case, we have no idea how old the Earth really is since all evidence for its age is suspect. By this argument, the idea that the aged Earth was created 6000 years ago is no more likely than the idea that the aged Earth (and all of our memories) were created eight days ago (Last Thursday).

9
Roundy is right, Aquinas's "First Cause argument" and most of its variations (e.g. Cosmological Argument) have been made suspect/discredited by modern academia.

You can read the various criticisms and objections to it at this page:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

The page is a thougough history and explaination of the ins and outs of the argument.
that is the fun with philosophy, not every one agrees on a single argument.

This is the problem, the "proof" was purely philosophical (or "metaphysical" if you will), there is no way of knowing whether any of those conclusions actually reflect the nature of the universe. Hence Roundys assertion that  "proof" or "disproof" of god probably is impossible.

Same problem with the "ontological" arguments, nice for people that already believe, but doesn't really prove anything.
that is why philosophy is the search for truth not fact

I see those criticism as viable and as flaws in this argument, now if you are implying that you never stated Aquinas's argument proved anything, then you would have to pardon me,  seeing as this is a thread about proof, and you claiming that he shows that God is necessary, for believing you did.

So you (not you, anyone who caims proof of God's existance) came up the an argument on paper, made some (questionable) assumptions about how the universe works, and came to some (questionable) conclusions about the nature of your universe. Whoop-de-fucking-doo, (throw yours in the bin with the other 5000 that claim to have done the same) so you have shown that God is necessary in your universe, now show that the nature your universe on paper is the nature of The Universe (not so easy). Otherwise, you have no business saying that you have proven anything about the Universe, or God.

10
Roundy is right, Aquinas's "First Cause argument" and most of its variations (e.g. Cosmological Argument) have been made suspect/discredited by modern academia.

You can read the various criticisms and objections to it at this page:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

The page is a thougough history and explaination of the ins and outs of the argument.
that is the fun with philosophy, not every one agrees on a single argument.

This is the problem, the "proof" was purely philosophical (or "metaphysical" if you will), there is no way of knowing whether any of those conclusions actually reflect the nature of the universe. Hence Roundys assertion that  "proof" or "disproof" of god probably is impossible.

Same problem with the "ontological" arguments, nice for people that already believe, but doesn't really prove anything.

11
Roundy is right, Aquinas's "First Cause argument" and most of its variations (e.g. Cosmological Argument) have been made suspect/discredited by modern academia.

You can read the various criticisms and objections to it at this page:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

The page is a thougough history and explaination of the ins and outs of the argument.

12
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 16, 2008, 08:47:15 PM »
Big difference is this is mathematically proveable.
You cannot write 9 enough times to make it 1.
If you could, you'd have infinite 9's, so you'd have infinity.

Well, you can't without the creative use of a decimal point.

13
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 16, 2008, 08:38:26 PM »
God damn, 18 pages already! Nice job Narc, this reminds me of the Floating Oceans Thread. You even have a couple "mini trolls" arguing alongside (or they might just be clueless, who knows). You are a god among trolls.

14
I wasn't being condescending at all. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I was admitting you were right.

In that case I misinterpreted your post, no apology required.

15
I understand why mules aren't considered a species. I passed 10th grade biology too. i just like contradicting people.

Thats fine, of course my post was mainly concerned with how species are exactly defined, the mule was just an example of breeding between two different species. I find that many people don't understand the differences between breeding and successful reproduction, and felt like making a post of the subject. Just because I quoted you in my post does not mean it was exclusivly to you, don't be condescending Raist. 

16
What about interspecies erotica?  Does that form new species?

No. Different species cannot reproduce. One of the prerequisites for being a species is that members of a species can reproduce with each other, but other species obviously can't do it.
Mules.

Mules are not considered as such because though they are viable (they are robust), mules are reproductivly infertile (except in very rare instances) and hence to not pass the second postzygotic barrier. Those that were somehow fertile never passed the third barrier. (the third is that the further generation also produce viable, fertile offspring).

Wendigo is right in his definition of species, this is the most commonly used definition in biology and was first defined by Ernst Mayr, he defined species as a population, or group of population whos members have the potential to interbreed in nature and produce viable, fertile offspring by interbreeding, but are unable to form viable fertile offspring with members of other populations (other species). This is known as the biological species concept.

Edit: So you see that even though an offspring is possible between horse and donkey, part of the requirements for successful reproduction are that the offspring be viable and fertile (and the future generations are viable/fertile).

17
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 14, 2008, 09:29:09 PM »
You guys are only proving you cant do math.

0.9999 != 1.

I agree.

18
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 14, 2008, 09:22:19 PM »
eveything but the (5/10)^(n+1), I meant it to be 5/(10^(n+1))

19
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 14, 2008, 08:38:37 PM »
get ready for my shitty MS paint proof that .49...5=5 (inf= infinity)


20
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 11, 2008, 06:35:12 PM »
I think the problem with this thread is that one person does not seem to understand that the infinite series representation of .9999... sums exactly to one, not approximatly. Not signaling anyone out but... *cough* just look at the proof again. If you feel there is a disproof, express it as a formal mathmatical (dis)proof.

21
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 09, 2008, 09:58:22 PM »
I was criticising the clumsy way you tried to explain the concept of limits earlier in the thread, I am not saying you don't know what a limit is. Granted my first response mistook your response for a criticism of jdoe's proof.  A limit is just that, a limit, not an approximation.

22
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 09, 2008, 09:52:59 PM »
I just don't understand what your equation, and your subsequent explaination of asymptotes has to do with jdoe's proof. What did you  clarify for people? Please explain yourself.

Is this your clumsy way of explaining that the limit of (1/10^x) is 0 as x approaches infinity?
what does a limit find; an answer or an approximate value?

The limit gives an exact a sum to an infinite series  (the sum is 1).  Since when the hell is a limit ever an approximation? I think the definition of a limit is obvious to anyone who has ever had a class dealing with them (a calculus class), and you are no substitute for a textbook.
In mathematics, the limit of a function is a fundamental concept in calculus and analysis concerning the behavior of that function near a particular input. Informally, a function assigns an output f(x) to every input x. The function has a limit L at an input p if f(x) is "close" to L whenever x is "close" to p. In other words, f(x) becomes closer and closer to L as x move closer and closer to p. More specifically, when f is applied to each input sufficiently close to p, the result is an output value that is arbitrarily close to L.

Ouch for you!

Right, the intuitive definition of a limit, please explain where I am wrong, if you feel that I am wrong in my conception of a limit. (So far the only thing you have proved to me is your copy/paste ability)

23
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 09, 2008, 09:35:28 PM »
I just don't understand what your equation, and your subsequent explaination of asymptotes has to do with jdoe's proof. What did you  clarify for people? Please explain yourself.

Is this your clumsy way of explaining that the limit of (1/10^x) is 0 as x approaches infinity?
what does a limit find; an answer or an approximate value?

The limit gives an exact a sum to an infinite series  (the sum is 1).  Since when the hell is a limit ever an approximation? I think the definition of a limit is obvious to anyone who has ever had a class dealing with them (a calculus class), and you are no substitute for a textbook to those who have not.

24
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 09, 2008, 09:15:32 PM »
 I just don't understand what your equation, and your subsequent explaination of asymptotes has to do with jdoe's proof. What did you  clarify for people? Please explain yourself.

Is this your clumsy way of explaining that the limit of (1/10^x) is 0 as x approaches infinity?

25
The Lounge / Re: .99999 does not equal 1
« on: August 09, 2008, 08:57:57 PM »
All .9999...=1 means is that the limit, as the number of 9's increases without bound, equals 1.



what are you finding out when you find a limit? what direction does the equation head towards but then you must also determine if there is an asymptote at that number ie. graph the equation f(x)=1/(1-x) and you will find that there is an asymptote at 1 because x can never=1

What the heck are you talking about? If you wanted to graph the equation in his limit you would use f(x)= 1- (1/10^(x)). Notice now that there is no way for there to be a zero in the denomenator, and no vertical asymptotes exist for f(x)= 1/10^x.  You could use L'Hospitals rule to prove that the limit approaches zero as n approaches infinity if you wanted.

Jdoe's proof works perfectly fine. Its obvious which direction the limit heads, as it was derived from an infinite series starting at k=1, to infinity. He dirived his limit by using the rule that determines the sum of a convergent  geometric series where the sum = term 1/1- common ratio. Since the sum is a limit, finding the limit will find the sum, which he proved was one.

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homophobia is either:
« on: July 03, 2008, 09:12:19 PM »
This thread is retarded because it does not even mirror the thread. Narc's thread was basically a perversion of an actual scientific question: Whether homosexuals are gay by choise or is there some genetic factor that determines sexual orientation. Since the choise is against the norm, usually, Narc labeled this a perversity. A change in the genetic norm is considered a mutation, hence the use of the term mutant. This is satire.

What you did was change a few words around. The meaning of the old thread was not retained, nor was any statement about the old thread made, no effort was put into any of this.

27
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homophobia is either:
« on: July 03, 2008, 08:57:08 PM »
No, I am hostile to idiots.

That's a little ironic, considering your only contention to this thread is that homophobia is more common than acceptance.

Absolutely, this is evidenced by state laws against homosexual marriges, here in the U.S. This indicated the majority of people are not accepting of it. But that depends on if you consider those who voted against gay marriges "homophobes".

I am not stating any opinions about homosexuality, just speaking logically. Try it sometimes?

28
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homophobia is either:
« on: July 03, 2008, 08:51:33 PM »
Neither Guessed nor I admitted to being homophobes, this is something you mind concocted as an explaination for our hostility to your stupid thread.

Yes, it was something my "mind concocted". You haven't explicitly admitted to being homophobic, but I inferred it from your "hostility to [my] stupid thread". Was I right?

No, I am hostile to idiots. Not homosexuals. Do you get it yet?

I criticize your postings, and in a blind fury you come to the conclusion that I must be against homosexuality somehow.

29
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homophobia is either:
« on: July 03, 2008, 08:46:59 PM »
Changing your intention to suit my definition does not make you any funnier. I consider subtlety to be a necessary part of satire, therefore I consider you a failure at satire. Based on my definition you are, therefore, a failure in this thread. Regardless of what it was or was not intended to be, it ended up as a miserable failure. 

Changing my intention? My intention never involved subtlety, therefore I never intended to be satirical. What part of that don't you understand? God, homophobes are the biggest group of rednecks.

Neither Guessed nor I admitted to being homophobes, this is something you mind concocted as an explaination for our hostility to your stupid thread. I believe this forum has an option to delete threads, or at least lock them. Do yourself the favor.

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homophobia is either:
« on: July 03, 2008, 08:38:52 PM »

Regardless of what it was or was not intended to be, it ended up as a miserable failure. 

Hear hear!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16