61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 01:23 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

..Life at any cost, Spendi...ANY cost....that way they dont have to find out if God really does exist. They take an instinct and make it a joke.

Just got back from serving 500 Thanksgiving dinners to families unable to buy them; these were the take-away dinners. Sit-down serving (mostly for people who have no homes to take food to) started an hour ago. I was just assigned to the first serving shift by my church (Episcopal in the US, plain Protestant elsewhere) and I've never seen a surlier, least grateful lot than the 500 persons for whom I put together aluminum take-away pans as per their specs - not one actually said "thank you", and all of them know the holiday is for "Thanksgiving"!. Well no matter - I was just wondering where exactly you come up with your assertions about religious beliefs held by anyone on this thread; or why you say the subject is transmuted into a joke. Thanks Smile
Rockhead
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 01:24 pm
@High Seas,
damned ungrateful poor people...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 01:27 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Within the theory of evolution, there reside several "Laws"...

I asked you what they were and you come up with some labels as if they are laws. Labels define nothing.

LAWS HAVE NAMES idiot. I gave you the names, you want I should do the math too? get a life and areal job . Im sure you can do something for minimum wage
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 01:34 pm
@farmerman,
Of course he wants you to do the math; he wouldn't know an eigenvalue if he tripped over one. Happy Thanksgiving to all. Bye.
spendius
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 01:39 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
You are addressing a fraudster - at your peril, as you saw. Here are my grounds for this characterization: the "gentleman" in question has claimed on this thread (I don't follow the other evolution thread or any of the discussions on theology) that he has an advanced degree in the sciences (either material sciences or chemistry) from a British university. Now even an undergraduate scientific degree at any accredited UK university would certainly require that he understand the precise meaning of the quoted paragraph - no matter whether the degree had been granted in mathematics, engineering, chemistry, or any related field. Parenthesis here to say context of quote was linked on previous pages, so there's no excuse other than shameless fraud.


Complete rubbish. You tell us what the gibberish meant.

Where did you vanish to when Imur took the trouble to find the post fm denied having made and you so innocently, without any knowledge of it, backed him up. fm has made no comment since about the matter and neither have you.

fm has been asked questions in post 4,423,217 that he has declined to even consider. He failed to answer the question about D.J. Aidley's omission of evolution theory, or even the word evolution, in his very technical biology textbook The Physiology of Excitable Cells despite his repeated claims that evolution theory is the basis of biology. (I don't recommend any of you try to read it btw--no 1 you won't understand a word of it and number 2 it will make you feel funny about your excitable cells).

He failed to answer the question on why Widow Wadman was not an exhibit at Dover and the chiclid and the flagellum were put in in her place when there are no chiclids or flaggies in the classrooms and a whole host of potential widows.

Then read the posts about him telling me that the environment is changing (big insight that) in response to my post that environmental changes and, today, human choices, are the driving forces of evolution and not biology, which is a given.

He expressed a desire to put religious people through re-training programmes. Then he denied having done so because he knew I wouldn't go looking for the proof. Twice I think. Then you supported him without any evidence beyong the denials which was very embarrassing for you as it turned out when Imur did take the trouble and found the objectionable post. After which you both scuttered off and his somewhere for a while.

He didn't answer the question about the "gynaeological problem" regarding Nature.

Then he said there are laws in evolution theory. When asked what they were he gave labels of laws.

And he has a long track record of not answering relevant questions such as does he want to see religion eradicated from US society.

I know who the fraudsters are on these two threads HS. You are one as well.

Now he's all cosy with Io and they have ceased calling each other really nasty names. Io provides him with Red Zone 1st downs you see.

You're out of your depth HS talking science with me and so are all the rest of you. You wouldn't know Science if it jumped out on you and especially not any biological science. And it's better that way.

If you know the "precise meaning of the quoted paragraph " I think you should explain. I'm sure I don't. Or ever will even if you do explain it. It was incomprehensible gibberish and I daresay whoever wrote it couldn't explain it either. Not under close questioning. It says nothing about the why and how of emergent properties. They are just poofed into existence. A bit of guessed "when" and a good idea of where from reports of the location of the emergence. No "whence" of course.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 01:51 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
LAWS HAVE NAMES idiot. I gave you the names.


So what? What the use of telling me about Oswald or Ohm or Faraday with nothing about what they said about what happens. You're barmy. Parkinson's Law obviously applies in the places you have taught bigotry. Anybody on the minimum wage is likely to be much more use to society than the specimens to which Parkinson's Law applies. And maybe HS's customers know it. They must look at you lot as if you are parasites dragging the country to its knees there being so many of you these days. It's good business getting in between pupil and teacher and distorting the proper hierarchy of intelligence for the personal gain of those who can do the right handshake.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 01:57 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
he wouldn't know an eigenvalue if he tripped over one.


You're dead right about that HS. I've never even heard of it. Where did you hear of it.

Quote:
A (non-zero) vector v of dimension N is an eigenvector of a square (N×N) matrix A if and only if it satisfies the linear equation

\mathbf{A} \mathbf{v} = \lambda \mathbf{v}

where λ is a scalar, termed the eigenvalue corresponding to v. That is, the eigenvectors are the vectors which the linear transformation A merely elongate or shrink, and the amount that they elongate/shrink is the eigenvalue. The above equation is called the eigenvalue equation or the eigenvalue problem.

This yields an equation for the eigenvalues

p\left(\lambda\right) := \det\left(\mathbf{A} - \lambda \mathbf{I}\right)= 0. \!\

We call p(λ) the characteristic polynomial, and the equation, called the characteristic equation, is an Nth order polynomial equation in the unknown λ. This equation will have Nλ distinct solutions, where 1 ≤ Nλ ≤ N . The set of solutions, i.e. the eigenvalues, is sometimes called the spectrum of A.

We can factor p as

p\left(\lambda\right)= (\lambda-\lambda_1)^{n_1}(\lambda-\lambda_2)^{n_2}\cdots(\lambda-\lambda_k)^{n_k} = 0 \!\

where

\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{\lambda}}{n_i} =N.

For each eigenvalue, λi, we have a specific eigenvalue equation

\left(\mathbf{A} - \lambda_i \mathbf{I}\right)\mathbf{v} = 0. \!\

There will be 1 ≤ mi ≤ ni linearly independent solutions to each eigenvalue equation. The mi solutions are the eigenvectors associated with the eigenvalue λi. The integer mi is termed the geometric multiplicity of λi. It is important to keep in mind that the algebraic multiplicity ni and geometric multiplicity mi may or may not be equal, but we always have mi ≤ ni. The simplest case is of course when mi = ni = 1. The total number of linearly independent eigenvectors, Nv, can be calculated by summing the geometric multiplicities

\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{\lambda}}{m_i} =N_{\mathbf{v}}.

The eigenvectors can be indexed by eigenvalues, i.e. using a double index, with vi,j being the jth eigenvector for the ith eigenvalue. The eigenvectors can also be indexed using the simpler notation of a single index vk, with k = 1, 2, ... , Nv.


Perhaps you'll explain it to me.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 03:06 pm
@High Seas,
As biology is up front on this thread HS could you tell us if the eigenvalue is applicable to expansions and shrinkings of flesh and whether it varies, either directly or inversely, in relation to such things as full moons, spring sunshine, false appendages, consumption of narcotics or $100 bills being waved; either singly or in combinations?
spendius
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 03:16 pm
@spendius,
What you're missing HS is that the sub-text of this thread relates to one thing only. It is trying to discredit Christian teaching on sexual behaviour for reasons all to obvious to anyone who knows anything about human nature.

There is not the slightest sign of any scientific sensibility in any of the anti-IDers on here. They are all complete subjectivists.

As HS proved to be when she expected to be thanked for serving some cheap food to a bunch of people down on their luck and which probably included some damaged vets. Do you work in a hat shop HS or something equally silly and economically debilitating?
farmerman
 
  6  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 06:16 pm
@spendius,
God spendi, you are fuckin nutz. wHEN YOU HANG ON An alleged statement that I made (and really didnt you know, what I said was a joke that mentioned retraining. You made up all the **** about "camps" and tried to score some piece of credibility by claiming I said something when the entire post context clearly shows that I was goofing on you. Are you really that dense? CAnt you even read that I was making a fool of you? ANYWAY, the entire line was from Robert Benchley who appeared on the DSIck Cavett show before he died and used the line about how they would soon be releasing prisoners as soon as they are reeducated. Oh well.

Your unfamiliarity with the math in multi-var analyses is telling because in chemistry we use factor analyses for many analytical fields. (MAybe you were trained during the Rennaissance or else your a druggist nd only have to worry about counting to 31)

Quote:
It is trying to discredit Christian teaching on sexual behaviour for reasons all to obvious to anyone who knows anything about human nature
You are dreaming the dream of the chronic druggie. That is the only line spendi can spew throughout his entire career herein.

SPendi, who is too afraid to begin his own threads because he doesnt know how to engage in anything that remotley approaches debate, and besides, he only wants attention not discussion.

Why not go over to some less taxing thread like coming up with
an alphabetical listing of porn movies. Im sure youd excel at something like that, evere since you posted yer "monkey porn" flick.

Ats it douche bag, I aint turning you back on this time, and Ill just try to ignore CI when he quotes you .

Read a biology and Historical Geology book if you want to see something about the LAws that dwell within evolutionary theory.
I have neither the inclination to deal with a boor as you, and besides, SInce you googled the factor analyses bits that HS mentioned, Im only assuming that you can find Dollos Law or Mendels three biggies. (Ill let you develop the math, if you are able)

spendius
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 06:24 pm
@farmerman,
There's no such thing as monkey porn fm. Porn is a Christian concept.

You can't look at much can you man?

You can tell a dude from his jokes. It's in Freud and he was a very famous scientist.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  5  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 06:30 pm
@farmerman,
Dude, you can't fix stupid.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 06:34 pm
@kuvasz,
I visited the fooball pool thread and saw that spendi had just cobbled all his rants from this thread and repackaged em over there with hardly any edits. He did it all in one sentence though. I think his prescriptions need refilling ASAP.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 09:46 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
What part of SELF CORRECTING are you having trouble dealing with?
What part of getting it wrong are YOU having trouble with ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 25 Nov, 2010 09:56 pm
@High Seas,
I think you have done yourself proud to help others. That they were not thankful is due to what life has done to them, not your efforts to help. I tip my hat to you....

Quote:
I was just wondering where exactly you come up with your assertions about religious beliefs held by anyone on this thread
Obviously it was a lot clearer in my mind then my typing.... Very Happy .....I was making a comment on the increasingly Atheistic nature of society and how they will do anything to survive. This is due to our umprecedented technology and low death rate. But using animal organs for humans has a yuck factor of 10 to me. I say that the natural instinct has been made a joke by these people. You are meant to be scared of death to avoid danger, not treat death as beat at any cost. There is the quality of life to be considered and it seems Atheists have nothing to lose by being cowards and manipulating everything to avoid death. If they are right and God does not exist, what do they have to worry about ? It will happen anyway and given the mathematics of infinity it already has.
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 01:43 am
Ionus wrote:
There is the quality of life to be considered and it seems Atheists have nothing to lose by being cowards and manipulating everything to avoid death.

Remember the saying : "All which is excessive is insignificant."

Such statements discredit all your stance.

I'm an atheist and I don't fear death.

I'm ready to leave this life any moment, even though it's a good one.

Et je ne regrette rien...(well, maybe one or two things)
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 03:46 am
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

Remember the saying : "All which is excessive is insignificant."

It's funny you would be quoting the old prince in that context, since his arms proudly bore the motto "Re que Diou" ("Nothing but God") Smile
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 04:04 am
@High Seas,
I am not aware that religions, especially Christianity, attend an attitude that says to "give up on extending life is Godlike" (To praphrase Ionus.
Hes been making several incorrect statements in the last few days and this is just another.
Being agnostic and atheistic does not mean that we are ignorant of much of our religious backgrounds. Im aware that , from Imhotep to John the Divine, most religions have embraced the concept of "good health " . The Christain Bible is perfectly aligned with medical research (as much as the early languages and understandings of the writers could express). I draw your attentions to Corinthians,Isaiah,Timothy, Peter, James, Luke etc, Whenever ones expressed purpose is to promote a life concordant with your religious beliefs then I think that to purposely twist and try to alter what ones own religion peaches, then one is guilty of Blasphemy, no?
Seems that atheists live more in alignment with Christian purpose than do (at least one) of the devout critics of "Godless science"

Perhaps some redjustment in Ionuas' ministry is in order no?
Francis
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 04:12 am
@High Seas,
One should not mistake Charles Maurice, prince de Talleyrand-Perigord for Hélie de Talleyrand-Perigord...
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Nov, 2010 04:19 am
@farmerman,
At least part of that commentary seems to be a spillover from the theology threads - which I don't read.

I just literally laughed out loud with Francis's post quoting Talleyrand. Btw, I'm sure Francis knew the inscription on the old prince's arms, just forgot it in that connection. It's in the old French of Gascony (seat of the princes de Talleyrand-Périgord), in modern French it would read "Rien que Dieu". Anyway Ionus seems only to have been speaking on using animal organs for transplants, and I'm not even sure that's a religious issue. It's certainly an ethical issue (to me, at any rate). And yes, both the Bible and the Koran seem to be supporting scientific research - but as I said I'm hardly a theology expert.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 07:46:39