fixed. unicorns suck.Dilbert_X wrote:
Also Unicorns. Spaghetti Monster.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Fuck you and your Speghetti Monster, infidel.
Meh, what do I care, you shall burn in the fire of damnation, while I shall ascend the spiral ramp of the great unicorn.
Meh, what do I care, you shall burn in the fire of damnation, while I shall ascend the spiral ramp of the great unicorn.
Fuck Israel
bullshit. meatballs and noodles are universal and eternal!Jaekus wrote:
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
I've never been able to have a long term relationship with a religious girl.
Seems too close to a violation of one of the Cardinal Rules of Life;
"Do NOT invite crazy into your life"
There is but meatballs and noodles, and spaghetti sauce is it's prophet.
Seems too close to a violation of one of the Cardinal Rules of Life;
"Do NOT invite crazy into your life"
Heathen! Old school revisionist! Denier of the Sauce!Shahter wrote:
bullshit. meatballs and noodles are universal and eternal!
There is but meatballs and noodles, and spaghetti sauce is it's prophet.
Adams_BJ wrote:
It will, she's not like shifty or warman level retarded, she just believes in god, and I think she was just putting it out there. I have no problem with it, like I've told her many times. I already know she won't take offence if I let her know that none of it is true.Macbeth wrote:
Yeah, this isn't going to work out the way you think it will.Adams_BJ wrote:
point that out in the most friendly way possible. Not in a condescending way.
....................How little you know of me.Adams_BJ wrote:
like I said, she's not shifty or warman level retarded. She does have a brain. Anyway I told her, and she promptly deleted the image. She said she thought it made some good points for a chain message. She stopped thinking that pretty quick though.Uzique wrote:
you want to try and counter a devout person's faith with a logical argument? the logical proofs of god's ontological existence and their counter-proofs and criticisms have been around since medieval theology. the whole thing is a pointless exercise. just scroll past the dumb and carry on your day.
easy.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Let me guess you're a classic case of still waters run deep eh?War Man wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
It will, she's not like shifty or warman level retarded, she just believes in god, and I think she was just putting it out there. I have no problem with it, like I've told her many times. I already know she won't take offence if I let her know that none of it is true.Macbeth wrote:
Yeah, this isn't going to work out the way you think it will.....................How little you know of me.Adams_BJ wrote:
like I said, she's not shifty or warman level retarded. She does have a brain. Anyway I told her, and she promptly deleted the image. She said she thought it made some good points for a chain message. She stopped thinking that pretty quick though.Uzique wrote:
you want to try and counter a devout person's faith with a logical argument? the logical proofs of god's ontological existence and their counter-proofs and criticisms have been around since medieval theology. the whole thing is a pointless exercise. just scroll past the dumb and carry on your day.
easy.
Honestly war man, what is there not to know? So far, you've displayed nothing but your inability to think for yourself and when you try you just fail miserably, which brings me to your second of oh so fine personal qualities that you show on this forum: You're an idiot.
Please enlighten us as to what there is to know about you that would contradict Adams statement.
On second thought, don't.
and for that we are all eternally gratefulWar Man wrote:
Adams_BJ wrote:
It will, she's not like shifty or warman level retarded, she just believes in god, and I think she was just putting it out there. I have no problem with it, like I've told her many times. I already know she won't take offence if I let her know that none of it is true.Macbeth wrote:
Yeah, this isn't going to work out the way you think it will.....................How little you know of me.Adams_BJ wrote:
like I said, she's not shifty or warman level retarded. She does have a brain. Anyway I told her, and she promptly deleted the image. She said she thought it made some good points for a chain message. She stopped thinking that pretty quick though.Uzique wrote:
you want to try and counter a devout person's faith with a logical argument? the logical proofs of god's ontological existence and their counter-proofs and criticisms have been around since medieval theology. the whole thing is a pointless exercise. just scroll past the dumb and carry on your day.
easy.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Depending on which science is figured out first, science may progress down a completely different branch of thought and theory.Jaekus wrote:
you mean, like evolution!?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Depending on which science is figured out first, science may progress down a completely different branch of thought and theory.Jaekus wrote:
Late, but this is my thoughts as well. I'd actually say it's quite likely.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Depending on which science is figured out first, science may progress down a completely different branch of thought and theory.Jaekus wrote:
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Math is a wholly human construct as well though. Who's to say that if science were seen through the prism of another language it would look identical?Spark wrote:
Late, but this is my thoughts as well. I'd actually say it's quite likely.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Depending on which science is figured out first, science may progress down a completely different branch of thought and theory.Jaekus wrote:
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6914
Math is inherent in nature. We only describe it.
E: eh I guess you could say math is a description of nature. But still, is a description really necessary to be aware of it?
E: eh I guess you could say math is a description of nature. But still, is a description really necessary to be aware of it?
Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-07-02 21:52:11)
Math is a unit of measurement, in concepts. If we measure something in feet or metres or unicorns, it's still the same length.
Science is grounded in facts and labelling said facts.
Science is grounded in facts and labelling said facts.
oh, this again. guys, please, just quit this "science vs religion" bullshit already. science deals with knowledge, religion deals with faith, and those who try to set them against one another are trying to fuck you up.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
I honestly couldn't tell you for sure if we could find an alternative mathematical framework that could give you reasonable approximations to the real world - because no one's tried - but I doubt it, simply because we have built our mathematical framework + our logic on the world around us, not the other way around. It's a difficult one. It's also worth saying that what often happens is that, especially in the last hundred years or so, physicists will invent mathematical objects to make their lives easier and mathematicians are left to do the clean-up job of making the things rigorous.Jay wrote:
Math is a wholly human construct as well though. Who's to say that if science were seen through the prism of another language it would look identical?Spark wrote:
Late, but this is my thoughts as well. I'd actually say it's quite likely.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Depending on which science is figured out first, science may progress down a completely different branch of thought and theory.
I was more thinking about some of the ridiculous and stupid historical conventions and annoying roadblocks that have been left in physics especially over the centuries that make our life needlessly complicated.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
A lot of mathematical concepts and constructs do draw inspiration from the world around us (Fibonacci sequence for example). The statement wasn't that it would be replicated EXACTLY the same, it is saying that because science is based upon fact and proof it would be rebuilt towards the same knowledge, unlike religion, which is based upon fables thought to be as actual happenings.
fibonacci sequence doesn't have very much to do with the natural world at all tbf. it's just one of those amazing accidents of life and numerology.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I beg to differ.
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emat6680/par … nature.htm
If this knowledge was wiped from the earth but all else remained the same someone would work it out again eventually.
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emat6680/par … nature.htm
If this knowledge was wiped from the earth but all else remained the same someone would work it out again eventually.
religion is as much a product or human culture as it is an information manipulation instrument. it has nothing to do with actual knowledge and science all the same, but saying it's simply "based on fables" is not entirely true.Jaekus wrote:
... unlike religion, which is based upon fables thought to be as actual happenings.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
I totally agree. I see the bible etc. as a teaching book, among other things - including the exact things you also mentioned.Shahter wrote:
religion is as much a product or human culture as it is an information manipulation instrument. it has nothing to do with actual knowledge and science all the same, but saying it's simply "based on fables" is not entirely true.Jaekus wrote:
... unlike religion, which is based upon fables thought to be as actual happenings.
Fibonnaci sequence has nothing to do with the natural world. It's a mathematical toy. Dan Brown made it famous because it sounded cool.Jaekus wrote:
A lot of mathematical concepts and constructs do draw inspiration from the world around us (Fibonacci sequence for example). The statement wasn't that it would be replicated EXACTLY the same, it is saying that because science is based upon fact and proof it would be rebuilt towards the same knowledge, unlike religion, which is based upon fables thought to be as actual happenings.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's a geometric series... there's nothing special about this particular one.Jaekus wrote:
I beg to differ.
http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emat6680/par … nature.htm
If this knowledge was wiped from the earth but all else remained the same someone would work it out again eventually.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
yeah precisely. there are heaps of sequences with weird real-world appearances.
i mean, there are some deep, and frankly rather frightening coincidences at the heart of physics/maths/nature but that isn't one of them
i mean, there are some deep, and frankly rather frightening coincidences at the heart of physics/maths/nature but that isn't one of them
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman