Science Disproves Evolution

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#761 Jul 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Infinity is easy to understand. Trying to make it a real phenomenon is the hard part - because it isn't.
That's what you struggle with. Making something what it isn't.
Bat your head against it all you want.
Your deliberate ignorance is noted – again

Wrong, if it were easy then everyone would be mathematicians and scientists and we can see that you are not.

Wrong again, what you struggle with is fact interfering with your god dreams,

Making something what it isn’t? Do you realise how hypocritical your god dream makes you look?

Drop the soap all you want...
Thinking

Poole, UK

#762 Jul 4, 2014
You're in denial. With your stunted finite god. No wonder you say you get violent.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Infinity is easy to understand. Trying to make it a real phenomenon is the hard part - because it isn't.
That's what you struggle with. Making something what it isn't.
Bat your head against it all you want.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#763 Jul 4, 2014
Puck Frick keeps talking about infinity as though there is only one he has to disbelieve.
There are actually a hierarchy of infinities.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Your deliberate ignorance is noted – again
Wrong, if it were easy then everyone would be mathematicians and scientists and we can see that you are not.
Wrong again, what you struggle with is fact interfering with your god dreams,
Making something what it isn’t? Do you realise how hypocritical your god dream makes you look?
Drop the soap all you want...

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#764 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Puck Frick keeps talking about infinity as though there is only one he has to disbelieve.
There are actually a hierarchy of infinities.
<quoted text>
Yup, I was concentrating on the infinity that can be seen/measured - at least partly. At the other end of the scale it can get quite interesting.

An easy way to show infinity is to type any number into your calculator or computer and divide by zero. Assuming that the device has no traps to prevent it (most do) then any number of devices would not be big enough to hold the answer.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#765 Jul 4, 2014
(I apologise in advance for my Mathematics BSc)

In arithmetic, 1/0 has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives the answer 1.

Say you start with 1/0.1, then 1/0.01, then 1/0.001,etc and it's fairly obvious that as the denominator tends to zero, it's inverse is tending to infinity.

However, start with 1/-0.1, then 1/-0.01, then 1/-0.001, etc and it's fairly obvious that as the denominator tends to zero, it's inverse is tending to *minus* infinity.

It's not both. 1/0 is meaningless.

What about 0/0? Well since any number multiplied by zero is zero, there's not enough information to calculate 0/0. We call that sort of result an indeterminate form.

(end apology)
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, I was concentrating on the infinity that can be seen/measured - at least partly. At the other end of the scale it can get quite interesting.
An easy way to show infinity is to type any number into your calculator or computer and divide by zero. Assuming that the device has no traps to prevent it (most do) then any number of devices would not be big enough to hold the answer.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#767 Jul 4, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, I was concentrating on the infinity that can be seen/measured -
The immeasurable thing that can be measured.

I see. Thanks.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#768 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
(I apologise in advance for my Mathematics BSc)
In arithmetic, 1/0 has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives the answer 1.
Say you start with 1/0.1, then 1/0.01, then 1/0.001,etc and it's fairly obvious that as the denominator tends to zero, it's inverse is tending to infinity.
However, start with 1/-0.1, then 1/-0.01, then 1/-0.001, etc and it's fairly obvious that as the denominator tends to zero, it's inverse is tending to *minus* infinity.
It's not both. 1/0 is meaningless.
What about 0/0? Well since any number multiplied by zero is zero, there's not enough information to calculate 0/0. We call that sort of result an indeterminate form.
(end apology)
<quoted text>
Phew...(zooms over head)
In the old days before such traps in the O/S, such any operation as x/0 would instantly render the computer useless until restarted. The excuse given, no computer is big enough to calculate infinity

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#769 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
(I apologise in advance for my Mathematics BSc)
In arithmetic, 1/0 has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives the answer 1.
Say you start with 1/0.1, then 1/0.01, then 1/0.001,etc and it's fairly obvious that as the denominator tends to zero, it's inverse is tending to infinity.
However, start with 1/-0.1, then 1/-0.01, then 1/-0.001, etc and it's fairly obvious that as the denominator tends to zero, it's inverse is tending to *minus* infinity.
It's not both. 1/0 is meaningless.
What about 0/0? Well since any number multiplied by zero is zero, there's not enough information to calculate 0/0. We call that sort of result an indeterminate form.
(end apology)
<quoted text>
As I have stated, the concept of infinity is useful in mathematics as an imaginary description of limits.

In math theory, you can have as many infinities as you wish.

In reality, you can have none. They do not exist and cannot exist.

I know this because I know the difference between imagination and reality.

Try it sometime.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#770 Jul 4, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The immeasurable thing that can be measured.
I see. Thanks.
The effects of the immeasurable thing on the measurable thing – it’s called a triangle and been known about since at least ancient Greek times. The Isosceles triangles used had a base as wide as the earth and sides about 13 billion light years long

So no, you don’t see

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#771 Jul 4, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Phew...(zooms over head)
In the old days before such traps in the O/S, such any operation as x/0 would instantly render the computer useless until restarted. The excuse given, no computer is big enough to calculate infinity
Wrong. It's not a matter of "big". Infinity is incalculable. It is incalculable as in "infinitely small", as well as large.

It does not exist in physical reality.

Stephen Hawking: "The universe is finite but unbounded".

The articles you cite erroneously substitute "infinite" for "unbounded".

Of course, you are not nearly smart enough to interpret such articles.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#772 Jul 4, 2014
No.

You and your finite god are in denial.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have stated, the concept of infinity is useful in mathematics as an imaginary description of limits.
In math theory, you can have as many infinities as you wish.
In reality, you can have none. They do not exist and cannot exist.
I know this because I know the difference between imagination and reality.
Try it sometime.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#773 Jul 4, 2014
So infinitely long lines lines don't even have to be curved in order to fit.

Hawking also believes there is an infinite number of Universes. Infinity multiplied by a number larger than zero is also infinite.

Think!
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. It's not a matter of "big". Infinity is incalculable. It is incalculable as in "infinitely small", as well as large.
It does not exist in physical reality.
Stephen Hawking: "The universe is finite but unbounded".
The articles you cite erroneously substitute "infinite" for "unbounded".
Of course, you are not nearly smart enough to interpret such articles.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#774 Jul 4, 2014
Before floating point was common, computers would repeatedly subtract the denominator from the numerator until the denominator was larger than the remainder to do divisions. Repeatedly subtracting zero could lock them up indefinitely.

Further proof that 1/0 is meaningless in the real world too. Puck Frick seems to think the real world is somewhere else.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Phew...(zooms over head)
In the old days before such traps in the O/S, such any operation as x/0 would instantly render the computer useless until restarted. The excuse given, no computer is big enough to calculate infinity

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#775 Jul 4, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The effects of the immeasurable thing on the measurable thing – it’s called a triangle and been known about since at least ancient Greek times. The Isosceles triangles used had a base as wide as the earth and sides about 13 billion light years long
So no, you don’t see
That's stupid. Something infinite would be immeasurable, but something immeasurable is not necessarily infinite.

You are not intellectually equipped to argue this with me.

Polymath lost the argument with me. You don't have a chance. You just look more stupid with every comment.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#776 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
So infinitely long lines lines don't even have to be curved in order to fit.
Hawking also believes there is an infinite number of Universes. Infinity multiplied by a number larger than zero is also infinite.
Think!
<quoted text>
You people are insane.

"infinite number of universes"???

Numbers denote quantity. "Infinite" is unquantifiable. So what is an infinite number? It's a contradiction in terms.

In quantifying the universes, what would be the largest finite number of universes immediately before it becomes infinite?

Take that number and add one. Is it infinite or finite? Answer: finite

Now add one to that number. Is it infinite or finite? Answer: finite

Continue counting. At what point does that quantity become infinite?

Answer: Never
Thinking

Poole, UK

#777 Jul 4, 2014
That all depends on the time between iterations.

Think!
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You people are insane.
"infinite number of universes"???
Numbers denote quantity. "Infinite" is unquantifiable. So what is an infinite number? It's a contradiction in terms.
In quantifying the universes, what would be the largest finite number of universes immediately before it becomes infinite?
Take that number and add one. Is it infinite or finite? Answer: finite
Now add one to that number. Is it infinite or finite? Answer: finite
Continue counting. At what point does that quantity become infinite?
Answer: Never

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#778 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
That all depends on the time between iterations.
Think!
<quoted text>
No, it has nothing to do with time.

If you want a back and forth with me, you'll have to do better. About one more lame response from you and I'm done.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#779 Jul 4, 2014
?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it has nothing to do with time.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#780 Jul 5, 2014
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. It's not a matter of "big". Infinity is incalculable. It is incalculable as in "infinitely small", as well as large.
It does not exist in physical reality.
Stephen Hawking: "The universe is finite but unbounded".
The articles you cite erroneously substitute "infinite" for "unbounded".
Of course, you are not nearly smart enough to interpret such articles.
You are so intent on dissing me that you did not read my response did you?– jeez what a moron you are. I never mentioned the size of infinity, infinity can be infinitely large or infinitely small. What I did mention was the size of the computer – you dumbo.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's stupid. Something infinite would be immeasurable, but something immeasurable is not necessarily infinite.
You are not intellectually equipped to argue this with me.
Polymath lost the argument with me. You don't have a chance. You just look more stupid with every comment.
And something stupid would be thick and something thick is not necessarily stupid – right?

You have of course either ignored the data obtained by WMAP or you ly ignore it, my guess is that you ignore it because it fooks with your god dunitwiv magic dream.

Nope, Poly did not loose the argument with you, you simply stomped your foot, ignored the reality and claimed you were right because you said so as is the butt crack way. More or less in the same way you stomp your feet, make up BS and lies about what I said and what I didn’t say and claim you are right because you are the bully.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#781 Jul 5, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so intent on dissing me that you did not read my response did you?– jeez what a moron you are. I never mentioned the size of infinity, infinity can be infinitely large or infinitely small. What I did mention was the size of the computer – you dumbo.
<quoted text>
And something stupid would be thick and something thick is not necessarily stupid – right?
You have of course either ignored the data obtained by WMAP or you ly ignore it, my guess is that you ignore it because it fooks with your god dunitwiv magic dream.
Nope, Poly did not loose the argument with you, you simply stomped your foot, ignored the reality and claimed you were right because you said so as is the butt crack way. More or less in the same way you stomp your feet, make up BS and lies about what I said and what I didn’t say and claim you are right because you are the bully.
We live in an expanding universe.

No sequence of expansion by addition can be infinite. Period.

The universe contains a finite, calculated quantity of particles.

No finite quantity of particles can be expanded to an infinite extent. Period.

An infinite universe is, therefore, not possible.

I logically destroyed every argument Polymath offered. He even tried to burnish his argument by offering the following proof that a 10' length could be divided into infinite segments greater than zero:

Dividing by 1/2, 1/4, 1/8,....

Of course, the trick there is he is simply using a premise based on infinite division to prove infinite division, which is a circular tautology.

A 10' segmnent divided in ANY fashion would have to require that the segments added would extend the same 10'. Infinite segments of any length greater than zero, when totaled, would be infinitely long, not 10' long.

While his argument is erroneoous, your arguments get nowhere near that good.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Aura Mytha 78,705
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Regolith Based Li... 32,454
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 15 hr Science 1,410
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... Aug 12 Eagle 12 - 1,152
what science will NEVER be able to prove Aug 11 Eagle 12 - 5
News What Ever Happened to the New Atheists?by Ellio... Aug 7 nanoanomaly 1
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web