Re: Reconciling the religious and scientific views on the origin of life [was Re: Evolution]


Glenn wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:42:12 -0700, Peter Vos wrote:
>
> > You haven't really provided much more of a counter argument than "Nuh
> > ...uh" while I have taken the time to not only provide concrete examples,
> > I even gave you references.
>
> Pay close attention, I'm not a teacher, you didn't go to school far
> enough to understand math. We can't communicate until you first admit
> your ignorance and second go to school and correct it. Otherwise you are
> just another Jesus freak trying to sneak in the back door.

You are intensely dense. I am not a Jesus feak of any stripe. But you
are certainly quick to make all sorts of assumptions... without any
evidence....so it is no surprise you are consistently wrong.


>
> >
> > Just because 1+1=2 is normally true, it is not always true. The fact
> > that 1+1=1 in Boolean algebra doesn't address my point. The distinction
> > between discovered and invented is not necessarily a distinction between
> > absolute and mutable. It certainly is not the distinction between the
> > different varieties of truth (a different topic entirely). Consider the
> > history of the Euler Relation. Clearly no definitions or proofs are
> > absolute and beyond revision. Gödel's incompleteness results mean
> > that we cannot eliminate the possibility that mathematics may actually
> > generate contradictions.
>
> My point wasn't about number systems and number base (I never mentioned
> them), but about the algebraic commutative law, the associative law, and
> sometimes the distribution rule. Additionally rules about zero and
> infinity are addressed. The assignment is to change one of these laws
> and prove that the resulting system is as complete and correct as the
> system without the change. Your misunderstanding means that you don't
> understand math to the extent needed to argue your defense of religion.
>
> >
> > If you want to hold on to the belief that pi was invented, that is
> > irrational.
>
> I said nothing about pi or any other math constant. Most of which are the
> sum of infinite series defined over 500 years ago. If you are searching
> for god, this isn't the place, try the physical constants -- they were
> worth a few laughs in the nineteenth century.

Your responses show you are intentionally being dense. There is no
point in continuing this discussion. We're done.

>
> --
> Glenn

.

Relevant Pages