…not providing any basis for your own thought. You’ve been asked more than once. You haven’t chosen to do so. When you never show what you actually think and why it’s pretty easy to laugh at others who choose to do so. After all we don’t know explicitly why you think you’re right. You haven’t told us. So you remain above the fray by not entering it in the first place. You take potshots from the sidelines and ask questions, but ignore any directed at you. Cowards way out perhaps, but the way you like to play in most threads it seems. [/quote]
Google is your friend, my faux libertarian friend.
It’ll take you some time to read them all. Set aside a few days, Mr. I-Want-My-Scientific/Religious-Views-Enforced-at-the-Point-of-a-Sword.[/quote]
You really can’t go a post without making a personal attack. You have to get your smug remarks in. Very juvenile. And no, I’ve clearly stated I don’t want my views enforced by point of sword. Makes you feel good to get yet another personal attack in I know, but I’ve been quite consistent through your constant barrage of yeah but what would you do now, yeah but what about this case, yeah but what about that. If I was a principal I’d say we are teaching science in science class. If I was a board member I’d say the same thing. If I HAD to legislate it I would. Why? Because I believe this is in the best interest of the students. You keep wanting to act as if I’ve been inconsistent in here. I have not in the slightest. Your attempts to continuously find a corner to paint me in are dull and unnecessary. I have answered your questions though as I feel it makes most sense on a forum to answer direct questions.
You’ve IGNORED all my questions directed at you, ignored legion’s questions, and others. You make it very hard to discuss anything with you when all you can do is attack members, make no claims of your own, ignore questions aimed at further discussion. The forum would be better off without this kind of stuff. Not saying you need to leave by any means. But think about changing the way you go about posting.
…But think about changing the way you go about posting.
[/quote]
Not a chance.
You haven’t earned my respect. I will duel with other liberal posters courteously but they are the ones who’ve earned my respect. [/quote]
From what I’ve seen you respect few on here. And you sneak in the liberal joke yet again. You don’t have to do what I asked. I didn’t expect you to. The forum would be better off if you did. You don’t have to respect me or anyone else. It’s the fucking internet, I don’t respect any username from people I have no idea about in real life. I do know that politics forums can’t exist without civil discourse. Well they can, but they became a cesspool of venom, irrationality, and personal attacks. You’re choosing to go down this route. I wish you wouldn’t. Not for me or because you respect me…but for the message board itself.
…not providing any basis for your own thought. You’ve been asked more than once. You haven’t chosen to do so. When you never show what you actually think and why it’s pretty easy to laugh at others who choose to do so. After all we don’t know explicitly why you think you’re right. You haven’t told us. So you remain above the fray by not entering it in the first place. You take potshots from the sidelines and ask questions, but ignore any directed at you. Cowards way out perhaps, but the way you like to play in most threads it seems. [/quote]
You know damn where
Google is your friend, my faux libertarian friend.
[quote]Legionary wrote:<<< Christianity and the acceptance of evolution are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church and its members have no problem doing so, and I applaud them for their objectivity. [/quote]Yes they are and the Catholic church and it’s members doing so is just one more evidence of the non Christian nature of both the Catholic church AND evolution. Dialog just like what’s goin on right now in this thread is exactly why I do not argue evidence on the whole. To say it yet one more time. Until we have settled HOW we know anything at all, any question/s of WHAT we know are so much frivolous fluff and futility.
I am going to try to engage DrMatt again and see if this time I can more effectively get him to understand my question of what makes 2+2=4. See, everybody’s jumpin up and down sreamin about chromosomes n isotope half lives n stuff and I’m still waitin for the 1st person to tell me the how and why of 2+2 equaling 4. I don’t think DrSkeptix wants to have this conversation. Which is too bad because he’s another perfect illustration of Romans 1 and 1st Corinthians 1. He is of course always welcome.
DrMatt (and DrSkeptix) dwarfs me in every qualification that impresses unbelievers, but he is utterly lost like a 4 year old in the arena of ultimate questions. The arena that dictates to him the “HOW” to his every “WHAT”. Scientists live in true slavery to their world of WHAT, all the while oblivious to God’s foundation of HOW. Even though they are making universal and comprehensive use of God’s HOW right down to their formulation of the WHAT statements they contrive to deny Him. This is the fool, saying in his heart that there is no God. Or even worse. That there is one of their own idolatrous design.
People who argue “evidence” with unbelievers have conceded defeat before the first shot is fired. To examine evidence for the existence of the God of historic Christianity in a self delusional hallucination of pretended objectivity, reduces Him to yet another object of investigation among all others rather than granting Him His rightful place as Himself the only standard by which ALL ELSE is measured.
Not pickin on Push. I get on everybody about this.
[quote]Legionary wrote:<<< Christianity and the acceptance of evolution are not mutually exclusive. The Catholic Church and its members have no problem doing so, and I applaud them for their objectivity. [/quote]Yes they are and the Catholic church and it’s members doing so is just one more evidence of the non Christian nature of both the Catholic church AND evolution. Dialog just like what’s goin on right now in this thread is exactly why I do not argue evidence on the whole. To say it yet one more time. Until we have settled HOW we know anything at all, any question/s of WHAT we know are so much frivolous fluff and futility.
I am going to try to engage DrMatt again and see if this time I can more effectively get him to understand my question of what makes 2+2=4. See, everybody’s jumpin up and down sreamin about chromosomes n isotope half lives n stuff and I’m still waitin for the 1st person to tell me the how and why of 2+2 equaling 4. I don’t think DrSkeptix wants to have this conversation. Which is too bad because he’s another perfect illustration of Romans 1 and 1st Corinthians 1. He is of course always welcome.
DrMatt (and DrSkeptix) dwarfs me in every qualification that impresses unbelievers, but he is utterly lost like a 4 year old in the arena of ultimate questions. The arena that dictates to him the “HOW” to his every “WHAT”. Scientists live in true slavery to their world of WHAT, all the while oblivious to God’s foundation of HOW. Even though they are making universal and comprehensive use of God’s HOW right down to their formulation of what statements they contrive to deny Him. This is the fool, saying in his heart that there is no God. Or even worse. That there is one of their own idolatrous design.
People who argue “evidence” with unbelievers have conceded defeat before the first shot is fired. To examine evidence for the existence of the God of historic Christianity in a self delusional hallucination of pretended objectivity, reduces Him to yet another object of investigation among all others rather than granting Him His rightful place as Himself the only standard by which ALL ELSE is measured.
Not pickin on Push. I get on everybody about this.
[/quote]
I marvel at how someone who questions the epidemiological foundations of something as simple as 2+2=4 goes on to claim he has knowledge of the “One True Living God.”
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
See, everybody’s jumpin up and down sreamin about chromosomes n isotope half lives n stuff and I’m still waitin for the 1st person to tell me the how and why of 2+2 equaling 4.
[/quote]
Because they are defined as such, and nothing more.
Investigate Formalism. Numbers need not represent ‘countables’. Z=x+iy is a number, even if one can not have 2+3i Apples.
People seriously underestimate how complex and deep these fields are. They expect instant simple answers to questions that others have slaved for years or decades to understand, but they refuse to do the heavy lifting themselves. The more I learn, the more there is to learn.
Here is a primer, suitable for one with a couple years of University mathematics.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
See, everybody’s jumpin up and down sreamin about chromosomes n isotope half lives n stuff and I’m still waitin for the 1st person to tell me the how and why of 2+2 equaling 4.
[/quote]
Because they are defined as such, and nothing more.
Investigate Formalism. Numbers need not represent ‘countables’. Z=x+iy is a number, even if one can not have 2+3i Apples.
People seriously underestimate how complex and deep these fields are. They expect instant simple answers to questions that others have slaved for years or decades to understand, but they refuse to do the heavy lifting themselves. The more I learn, the more there is to learn.
Here is a primer, suitable for one with a couple years of University mathematics.
Those works, while interesting, are not really all that applicable or relevant to this discussion. Algebraic number theory does not define integers or the basic operations on them, which is what this discussion is on, but rather expands on the idea of algebraic structures (such as integers) and explores specific algebraic operations related to them, but not the one we need for this discussion. For this discussion, the relevant topics are Abelian Groups and Equivalence Classes, which are usually covered in introductory abstract algebra classes.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
a whole bunch[/quote]I find it astonishing that people that seem hell bent on scrutinizing evolution are unable or unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their creationism.[/quote]I don’t find it astonishing at all that people who ARE hell bent on scrutinizing the living God are unable and unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their belief that 2+2=4.
DrMatt. Allow me to subtly, but profoundly rephrase my question. What MAKES 2+2=4? Language is the vehicle. I’m talkin about the cargo.
[/quote]
I have already answered this several times in this tread.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
H, I think I have you pegged. I hereby peg thee as the “I’m pretty much just here for the legalized drugs” libertarian.[/quote]
This is surprising considering I don’t think I’ve made a post that mentions drugs yet. If I have it certainly hasn’t been with any type of frequency. I’ve never used anything other than alcohol or tobacco and I never will.
But I can be whatever you need me to be that fits your view best. Don’t let my words get in the way of a good fairy tale by you.
Thou givest not a flying fuck about the message board itself. You strode in here a few weeks ago chock full of screaming and hollering and hand-wringing and bawling and chortling. You get the attitude you’re getting from me because the bozos who do just what you’ve done don’t deserve my courteous, considerate responses.
Go talk to smh. He is liberal and he doesn’t run ‘round cacklin’ like you do. So I cut him some slack and don’t whittle on him near as much as I do the likes of you.
[/quote]
This is not true. I posted in here before the election saying Nate Silver was right I felt. I was routinely attacked for that stance, which was validated. After the election when all the oh Obama threads came out I found it funny that “conservatives” had a big issue with the national debt all of a sudden when they didn’t a few years prior. I showed them the differences with their own posts. This infuriated many and again I was routinely attacked for this “crazy” position of asking how come you didn’t care about the debt with Bush.
Did I respond to some of those attacks in a poor manner? Absolutely. It was more my frustration though that clear intellectual dishonesty wasn’t just being ignored, those who pointed it out were being attacked. If I’m going to post in places I would prefer that intellectual dishonesty be called out and personal attacks be kept away. After all this isn’t conducive to a good environment for discussion. I’m not saying I haven’t had the same problem at times, but go through my posts on the whole and I’d say I’m much less confrontational than you have been.
As for ‘round cacklin’ whatever that means, I’d say your behavior in this thread fits that description much more than mine has. Of course you will handwave and dismiss this just like all the other posts in this thread…but again you can only point out stuff to people and hope they change. You probably have no intention of changing and the board will be worse off for it.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< integers or the basic operations on them, which is what this discussion is on, >>>[/quote] No Sir. This has literally NOTHING to do with what this discussion is on. Old reruns of The Honeymooners are more relevant. Which is why this: [quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:<<< I have already answered this several times in this thread. [/quote] is simply not true. You have been showering me in “WHAT” statements while I have been asking you about “HOW” (and why) statements. DrSkepix, a bit disappointingly and in a sort of roundabout way, confidently stated: (to paraphrase) “I ain’t gittin all hung up on all that philosophical stuff”. To which I reply, YOU ARE hung up on all that philosophical stuff whether you recognize or like it or not.
I am telling you, and Groo even told you (through me) that you have not yet even understood the question, nevermind given an answer. The above quote where you mention “integers” and “basic operations” is proof positive. If you do not wish to talk about this? Fine, but you have not moved one logical inch toward providing an answer. I could introduce you to 1st graders who understand both the question and the answer.
They operate on the same logical foundation you do only they recognize it and you don’t. Their 1st grade answers, in their very simplicity, would be erupting with intellectual and philosophical (and spiritual) truth and profundity. Nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence or education. Nothing. In fact most of the time both are a hindrance in this arena.
I’m not interested in mathematical axioms. I’m interested in THE axiom that makes all the others, including the mathematical ones axiomatic. YES, that makes perfect sense and YES there is one. OR, 2+2=4 is believed by you by a faith that is literally and utterly blind. A faith in which the flying spaghetti monster, or a grape Popsicle may indeed be God. All of your math is reduced to a volume of unholy scripture, a statement of authentically religious conviction that you simply prefer to mine with neither being more or less probably true. Make no mistake my friend. That IS where you are.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
a whole bunch[/quote]I find it astonishing that people that seem hell bent on scrutinizing evolution are unable or unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their creationism.[/quote]I don’t find it astonishing at all that people who ARE hell bent on scrutinizing the living God are unable and unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their belief that 2+2=4.
DrMatt. Allow me to subtly, but profoundly rephrase my question. What MAKES 2+2=4? Language is the vehicle. I’m talkin about the cargo.
[/quote]
I have already answered this several times in this tread.
[/quote]
I figured him ignoring your first response to that was accepting the answer and moving on, but nope I’ve still seem him bring up that 2+2 thing several times after.
[quote]colt44 wrote:
a whole bunch[/quote]I find it astonishing that people that seem hell bent on scrutinizing evolution are unable or unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their creationism.[/quote]I don’t find it astonishing at all that people who ARE hell bent on scrutinizing the living God are unable and unwilling to apply the same level of critical thinking to their belief that 2+2=4.
DrMatt. Allow me to subtly, but profoundly rephrase my question. What MAKES 2+2=4? Language is the vehicle. I’m talkin about the cargo.
[/quote]
I have already answered this several times in this tread.
[/quote]
I figured him ignoring your first response to that was accepting the answer and moving on, but nope I’ve still seem him bring up that 2+2 thing several times after.[/quote]
I marvel at how someone who questions the epidemiological foundations of something as simple as 2+2=4 goes on to claim he has knowledge of the “One True Living God.” Complete hubris.