Re: Geometry and G-d...
Really ? Wow, and here I thought snow crystals form when water vapor condenses directly into ice. Didn’t know they just appeared from out of no where and from nothing. Learn something new every day.
Badly-applied metaphor. I thought I made it quite clear with the rest of my statements that I was refering to the fact that snowflakes were not the product of an intelligent design.
The whole reason the Egyptians were brought in was as an example of an ancient culture utilizing mathematics to construct amazing structures.
No, actually, if you look back, you'll see that I brought up the Egyptians and the mathematical knowledge that they had which predated the Bible as a firect refutation to CAT's claim that all the science and mathematics that we knwo today is derived from the text of the Bible. It was a specific refutation to a specific erronious claim. And the two papyri that I keep mentioning were used as the example of their knowledge,
not the pyramids.
They are constructed of massive stones fitted to one another with complex, knife-edge precision joints that bind the structure even when the ground trembles. A razor blade still cannot be inserted between them.
That's a slight exaggeration, but I have never claimed differently.
You are stating they did this with a string and a stick?
No, I am claiming that with little more than a string and a stick it is possible to align such structures with True North, and that the way the differing alignments correlate exactly with the movements of the stars throughout the ages is some small evidence that this may have been the technique used.
About the brickwork, I am claiming that with little more than an extensive labour force with little more than rounded rocks which are harder than sandstone I have seen them carved out to exactly match those which make up the Ancient Egyptian pyramids. Maybe they'll show the series again at some point on BBC America, or the History Channel, or some such channel. Until then you'll either have to take my word for it or not.
The Mayan calendar set to specific cycles demonstrates some understanding of mathematical dynamics.
Absolutely. I've not disputed that, however. What I have disputed is that the Egyptian pyramids in and of themselves are proof that the Egyptians had mathematical knowledge that was not needed in the construction of the pyramids.
Everything in your world, Trollie, is a lucky roll of the dice.
It's a lot more complex than that. And I don't believe in luck. Things just happen, one after another. And some of those things cause other things to happen. That would be a much better way of summing up my beliefs on the subject.
I wonder how a genuine Cobra would handle the roads you mentioned?
Well, it'd have to go 20 MPH on certain sections, just like the rest of us. There's no car that can be engineerd to get past the obstacle that is the Suffolk/Norfolk driver. And for the clearer sections...I'd certainly suggest driving slowly before trying it too fast. Lots of hills, lots of sudden sharp corners, and big hedges on each side of the narrow road. You can't see what's coming round a corner before you're there, you can't see if there's a 90 degree bend directly in front of you (in one place there's actually a bend that must be at least 270 degrees, and that comes up blind. I don't actually think you could get a car the size of an American one round it. You can't get a mini-van round it), thre's no pavements so you have to be on the lookout for pedestrians/bicycles/horses at all times and have to be prepared to stop at any time, and there's hundreds of hidden, blind driveways and entrances and exits so cars, children and anything else you could care to name can suddenly appear on the road in front of you.
When I say that driving on an American interstate will not prepare you for driving down Suffolk/Norfolk country roads, I'm not kidding.
CAT, that wasn't very nice.
This is exactly why it's pointless to even attempt to engage CAT in discussion. If you disagree with her she will simply say things like that and hide behind the veneer of being "funny" (although she must have had a serious humour bypass if she thinks there's any humour in that statement). It's okay because Jesus would have made the same joke in the same situation, apparently. Add to that she's admitted that she doesn't actually care if any of the facts she uses to support her position are right or not, and I simply don't see the point. She has nothing of value to add, and can't even make her worthless contribution in a manner that anybody over the age of 5 would find appropriate or funny. Ergo, I don't care.
My name is Thomas. What is yours my friend?
It's Aidy. But don't be concerned, the nickname "trollface" came long before I'd ever been on the internet, and people in real life do call me it. I like either.
Rainman said:
When I say "complex" I am again referring to thermodynamic complexity, as defined by entropy.
Oh, okay, that was not clear. You didn't specify that you were speaking in thermodynamic terms (or even scientific terms, for that matter), and could have meant any of the many scientific definitions of the word. As you had not specified any context, I took the most widely-used form of the word.
Anyway, nice links, but you miss my point. I wasn't attempting to offer up the snowflake as proof of evolution (nobody had even mentioned evolution until you just did). I was offering it up as an example of something that was created without an intelligent guiding hand. If you prefer, we can stick to the example of Jack Frost, as that's clearer, and is an established anthropomorphisation of a natural phenomenon.
You keep fooling yourself into thinking you have addressed my points, but you have not. You have given fairly weak scientific arguments to individual points. But my argument is not at all about individual points.
Direct contradiction, there. Either I have addressed the points you've made (albeit not to your satisfaction, and the points you make apparently are irrelevent now) or I haven't.
It is about integrating information, and asking yourself "what do all these things infer to us?"
That people read too much into things, and have an inherent need to appeal to a higher authority to give themselves a sense of meaning and purpose? Or, if you're talking about the facts themselves, ehat I infer from them is that the universe is a cool place.
Let's just be clear here: You are continually attempting to apply linear reason to refute my evidence. However, nature shows us, and I am pretty sure you will agree, that linear phenomena represent an extremely small subset of total universal phenomena. Therefore, attempting to use linear reason to refute an understanding of nature (and energy) which requires an understanding of its basis in non-linearity can simply never work.
"Linear phenomena" and "linear reasoning" are not equivalent simply because they share a word in common. By that reasoning, they would also be equivalent to "linear underpants" (
http://www.underwear24.ch/index.cfm...&gender=me&DetailID=1264&navID=14), which they clearly are not.
Perhaps you can define exactlt what you mean by "non-linear reasoning", how it's equivalent to the scientific definition(s) of "non-linear" (after all, very, very few scientific concepts are linear), and exactly how you see it being applied? Unfuzzy the terminology for me, here. I know you've given a link to a site of "non-linear reasoning" before, but that was just a poncey name put onto good, old-fashioned logic-problems. Which, despite what you may choose to believe, are nothing special or esoteric, indeed they're tools often used for honing skills of reason and debate. They certainly do not go against scientific method, or the requirements of factual basis and proof for claims, as seems to be your implication.
I suspect that what you mean is not that you wish me to apply "non-linear logic", rather that you wish me to
abandon logic. Sorry, I'm not that kind of chap, and I do not simply go with the irrational, taking leave of the sense I was born with.
