Does Common Descent Follow Logically From Darwin's Four Postulates?
- Thread starter Eugene Shubert
- Start date
Really? I think someone can also be oppose a mathematical definition simply because they are not very smart.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
So what are all the possible, senseless motives of opposers to a valid mathematical definition?
Last edited:
If I were to explain the definition of limits to a cousin of mine who has a rather low IQ, he would say that it makes no sense and he would oppose the notion. I don't see how motivation has anything to do with it.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
How about: So what are all the possible, senseless motives of opposers to a valid mathematical definition?
what's the mathematical symbol for magic?
Are you thinking of the valid mathematical definetion Bertie proved?
Of another?
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
I prefer to invoke the greater power abbreviated QM.
Probably the same motives as ignorant, clueless creationists trying to create scientific-sounding justifications for their facile arguments.
Don't know, don't care.
Please first define the valid mathematical definition and I will look up and check
in my
Jane's Book of Possible Senseless Motives of Opposers
and list a few for you
Do you require only the ones with illustrations?
Or just a random handful?
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
What we have here, folks, is one of Feynman's "Cargo Cults".
The disused airports have runways overgrown with weeds, and some of the natives who previously benefitted from the commerce that was a side effect of being a center of military air transport decide that the best way to improve their lives is to build flightless mock aircraft out of cargo crates and try to emulate the behavior of the pilots and military support personnel who have long since departed, never to return.
Earth as the center of the universe is gone. The flat Earth is gone. The giant tortoises are gone. Ptoloemy is gone. The military aircraft are gone. What's left?
The book of Genesis. Relativity. Quantum mechanics. Even evolution is beginning to be co-0pted as a means for religious indoctrination.
Creationists are acculturating to science. They are only to trying to recapture some of the respectability of science to replace their failing, inconsistent and contradictory religious doctrine and world view, like the primitive societies building those cargo crate aircraft.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/contra_list.html
Pity the creationists for having no motivation for doing science other than to search for a reason to continue to believe that something that is on the threshold of miraculousness will somehow miraculously reappear to them some day. If you squint just right, you can see evidence in the book of Revelations, can't you?
Acrimonious 1-1: And they shall create for themselves an idol G-d from math and physics.
If they succeed, that would indeed be a miracle. It would also break the first commandment, making science into the object of idol worship, again, like those cargo crate planes were.
I can't make it any plainer than that. If you want to study science, fine. Don't try to make it into a religion also unless you really understand what it is you are doing. The two ends are not compatible with each other. While science MUST change in order to remain a science, religion cannot change, comparatively speaking, at all. When was the last time the book of Genesis changed? Never? Why is that? It's NOT science; that's why.
Last edited:
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
Atheistic fantasies are easy to refute. I grew up learning science and loving science long before I read and believed the New Testament gospels. Where is the inconsistency in believing in both science and Jesus Christ? What is inconsistent about The Fundamental Axioms of Seventh-day Millerites, Circa 2017?
I wasn't aware you had lost your inconsistency
Sorry bout that
Best way I can think of to find it is to make a list
3 columns
1 Science
2 god
3 same / different
In the Science column put any Science theory
In the god column put any matching god theory
3 column ✓ if they match X no match
Your inconsistency should turn up at the bottom of column 3 with a heap of Xs
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
I think it's great you're finally asking the right questions, Eugene.
You'll be fine if you just remember to always question your precepts in science, even if you feel you must refrain from questioning the precepts of your faith.
In my adopted faith, I can do both.
Nothing at all. He likely did exist.
No scientific evidence for immortal humans (axiom 4.) We will learn (and have learned) more than Jesus knew (axiom 8.) Nature, not God, causes natural disasters (axiom 11.)
However, do a little more work on those axioms, and they'd get closer to something that made sense - and did not conflict with science. So good work so far.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
That's fine with me. An axiom is an axiom.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
The resurrected Christ has fully regained all of His original God-like powers. He is infinite; I am finite. And you are clearly finite.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
Einstein summed up his feelings about quantum mechanics in the phrase, "Gott wurfelt nicht!" (God does not play dice)! Stephen Hawking replies, "But all the evidence indicates that God is an inveterate gambler and that He throws the dice on every possible occasion" (Black Holes and Baby Universes, p. 70). My response to Einstein's metaphysics used to be "God not only plays dice with the universe, —He cheats." I now believe that the quintessence of modern physics is best expressed in the New Living Translation of Proverbs 16:33. "We may throw the dice, but the LORD determines how they fall."