Abracadabra wrote:

So it’s ok for them to tell me that they think it’s stupid to believe in
evolution but it’s not ok for me to tell them that I think it’s stupid
to believe in fairytales?

===========================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

You know full well that this thread was only created to prove you to be
a hypocrite, which it did. But it was kind of a waste, becuase you do
that yourself with every self-righteous post. I have said in several
different threads in more than a half dozen posts that I believe in
micro-evolution.

In the first place, Abra, you have ONE person who made the thread. If
you wanted to say "Spider," YOU are stupid," (because he said evolution
is stupid) that's one thing.

But again you go with the insults...calling the Bible a "fairytale."

Me, I do believe in evolution of certain species. It's a fact that
animals and plant life have gone through an evolutionary process.

I do NOT believe mankind evolved from apes. I believe we evolved from
earlier forms of man, perhaps, but certainly not apes.

But that's neither here nor there.

No matter what the topic, in any religious discussion that comes up,
your utter disdain for the Bible and what it teaches and those who
believe what it teaches is clearly evident and you're doing a piss-poor
job of trying to excuse it away, particularly since, in the very next
breath, you'll throw in yet ANOTHER insult.

You said you were going to try to be more tactful. I don't see any
evidence of that.

Spider
“Abra does't just suggest that his beliefs are correct, but also that we
are wrong, that our beliefs are absurd and that we are stupid.”

Read the title of your very own thread.

Excuse me... I've got to go cut something down. I'll be bok.

Abracadabra,

Stop reading the title of the thread and read some of my posts. I have
said that the title of the thread wasn't serious several times, do you
skip my posts where I say that? How can you not get it yet?

I'll gracefully bow out.

Discussions have been fairly civil up to this point.

Evidently emotions are starting to flair.

I want to parts of this.

Believe whatever you like.

And have a nice day.

Abra:

It has been nice talking with you about this. On a final note, however,
I have to disagree that mathematics is quantitative at all. Mathematics
is philosophy, it is purely thought and abstraction. If observation
helps on understand math, this is merely because observation is a lesser
thing.

Mathematics begins by asserting some particular axioms, and then
proceeds to demonstrate what must be true given that the axioms are
true. It says nothing at all about reality. Empirical logic is the
business of determining which of the mathematical axioms happen to also
be useful in observational practice. But this does not mean that there
is any relationship between the axioms and whatever we want to call
"truth." For instance, I am working on a paper about algebraic geometry.
It is perhaps the most arcane and useless type of mathematics you can
possibly think of. It has no connection to the real world, provides no
technology. But it may explain answers to philosophical questions about
what we call "truth."

I agree with you that philosophy is not valuable for material
satisfaction or material well-being. But, then again, why should I think
that material satisfaction or well-being are important in the first
place?

Obviously I have to eat food and protect myself from nature. And to some
degree, empirical logic enables me to do that. But that does not mean
that empirical logic should be believed in every setting that it can
possibly be applied. I am merely saying that evolution happens to be one
very controversial setting in which empiricism cannot help us reach any
meaningful conclusion.

I would agree that God defies human understanding except in those ways
that he chooses to let us understand him. But if God defies logic, then
there is no point in investigating him. The same is true for evolution.
If evolution is believed merely because we dogmatically accept
empiricism on all acounts, then there evolution is vacuously true and
there is no reason to believe that anything about it corresponds to
"truth." And until someone can demonstrate to me why I should believe
that empirical evidence can possibly help me understand things about the
distant past, I will dispute them.

Abra, there was nothing wrong with you voicing your opinion but as far
as tempers starting to flare, well, you should know me well enough by
now that you have yet begun to see the path of destruction I could cause
if I wanted to.

But I like it here and I don't want to get kicked out. Your continuing
snide remarks about the Bible and people who believe in it are entirely
uncalled for and then you are proclaiming that you're bowing out as if
you don't know that YOU are the one who's causing them to flare in the
first place.

If "bowing out" is the only thing that'll keep you from making rude
comments and insulting people's intelligence just because they don't
happen to believe as you do, then so be it.

There are plenty of people here who don't believe in God and the Bible
who don't stoop to making the snotty comments you seem to take every
opportunity given you to do so.

Have a nice day!

Or I should say "emotions," not tempers.

Ely wrote:
“Mathematics begins by asserting some particular axioms, and then
proceeds to demonstrate what must be true given that the axioms are
true. It says nothing at all about reality”

Yes, I agree with you that this is indeed what modern mathematics has
become. In fact, I’m in the middle of writing a book on this precise
topic.

Ely wrote:
“But it may explain answers to philosophical questions about what we
call "truth."

Exactly. And with respect to mathematics what does that "truth" rely
on?

You already answered that question yourself.

Ely wrote:
“Mathematics begins by asserting some particular axioms”

Exactly.

Any conclusions that you make are only ‘true’ with respect to the axioms
that you have initially asserted.

The book I am writing currently questions the ‘truth’ of some of the
fundamental axioms of modern mathematics. Why did we choose those
particular axioms? Why do we believe that those particular axioms have
any inherent ‘truth’.

In my book, I describe my concerns associated with specific axioms. I
explain why I believe that those particular axioms do not have any
inherent ‘truth’, and I offer replacement axioms which I feel do hold
inherent truth. The consequences of changing even one fundamental
axiom of mathematics is profound and far-reaching. And in fact, I do
only change one.

So I'm fully aware of what you are talking about. I’m currently writing
a book on it right now.

The title of my book is: On the Definition of the Number One

It begins with set theory and the formal definition of ‘number’.

It ends with an explanation of why irrational numbers are irrational.

Can you explain to me why irrational numbers are irrational using
current modern mathematics?

Irrational numbers are irrational because the are the algebraic closure
of the ring of rational numbers. They are precisely the limit points of
Q.

Abra wrote....

Sun 05/06/07 11:06 AM
People are willing to accept all of these absurdies with no problem, yet
they will argue until they are blue in the face that evolution make no
'sense'.

I think I just might die today from chronic belly laughing.
***************************************************

Seems to be contagious Abra...

Ely wrote:
"Irrational numbers are irrational because the are the algebraic closure
of the ring of rational numbers. They are precisely the limit points of
Q."

That’s not an explanation. That’s merely a definition. Based on the
calculus limit no less.

Exactly,

the irrational number are merely a defined set of things. The term
"irrational" as used in daily English has nothing to do with the term
"irrational" as used in mathematics. The term "complex" for example,
also has no special purpose except that it indentifies the imaginary
numbers (which, incidentally, are not imaginary). More over,
transcendental numbers are no transcendental, whole numbers are not
whole, rational numbers are not rational (unless you speak Latin). There
are a whole host of other number types (p-adic, dyadic, primitive,
Stirling, etc) and their adjectives do not imply any relation to the
English phrases.

Pi is a great example. It's irrational and transcendental, but I cannot
think of a more rational or concrete number.

evolution---is for people who dont believe in God

Ely wrote:
"The term 'irrational' as used in daily English has nothing to do with
the term "irrational" as used in mathematics"

I'm fully aware of what 'irrational' means mathematically. It simply
refers to a quantity that cannot be expressed as the ratio of two
natural numbers.

However, many people do suggest that such a quantity is indeed
'irrational' in the normal meaning of the word as well. In fact, it was
extremely difficult for mathematicians to accept the concept of
irrational numbers for the very reason that they did seem to be
‘irrational’ in the normal sense of the word.

Pythagoras denounced irrational numbers to his death. Kronecker was
still denouncing them just a couple hundred years ago.

And yes, there’s nothing imaginary about an imaginary numbers. I use
them all the time in physics and they do indeed represent actual
physical properties. So to me they are just as real as any other
cardinal number.

Beachbabe wrote:
" evolution---is for people who dont believe in God "

Or for people who don’t tell god how to do things.

I believe in god.

I also think there is merit to evolution.

However I do not think it is important.

Debating evolution or creation as far as the past is concerned is like
trying to eat a meal that was consumed yesterday.

For me...

Each day is created anew with the rising of the sun. That day then
begins to evolve and continues to evolve till the next day comes to be
created.

What does it matter what was or was not truth in the days of my
ancestors? They lived life in their day. I shall live life in mine.
In due time and more time my decendants also will live their life as it
is in their time.

There is but one constant in each time... GOD will give each generation
the boundless ocean of his loving grace that they may thrive.

Evolution is stupid? I KNOW people who take Bible accounts as fact are
stupid.
The Bible is a collection of stories that try to explain the world the
best people could back then. It's base on obversevations of the
surroundings. People back then believe in a many gods that controled the
force of nature. In greek mythology a god call Zeus, who control the
rains, thunder and lighting saw the earth had wicked people on and he
decided to cleanse it in a flood. Coincedently he only left a good,
humble and honest man and his wife survive the flood. Does this story
sound familiar?

The Bible teaches people their relationship God and how to treat other
people, it does not scientificly explain the environment around them The
Bible shows moral truth not fact.

Oh, you KNOW that, do you? LOL...y'okay.