h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ok, here it is. See if you can spot the flaw. (^2 means squared)

if a=b
a^2=ab
a^2+a^2=a^2+ab
2a^2=a^2+ab
2a^2-2ab=a^2+ab-2ab
2a^2-2ab=a^2-ab
2(a^2-ab)=1(a^2-ab)
(2+1)(a^2-ab)=(1+1)(a^2-ab)
2+1=1+1
3=1+1
1+1=3
QED

Tango

a^2-ab = 0

So in going from (2+1)(a^2-ab)=(1+1)(a^2-ab) to 2+1=1+1 you've divided by zero

That is correct.

I count 3 people in this thread without names. Can you please all go to <./>UserDetails</.> and give yourself a more easily recognisable name.

Tango

Why?

So that you can call us stupid? If you can't recognise a number - and it's only six digits long - then *you* must be the stupid one

I think it is fairly clear that the 3 people not using names in this thread are not newbies, and that i probably know them. Do you know slashdot.org? It has a function to allow people to post without revealing who they are. It posts such things as from "Anonymous Coward". That is what you are. A coward. I don't see why i should bother trying to make a gullible and irrational person, who is clearly also a coward, see sense.

Tango

"I think it is fairly clear that the 3 people not using names in this thread are not newbies, and that i probably know them. Do you know slashdot.org? It has a function to allow people to post without revealing who they are. It posts such things as from "Anonymous Coward". That is what you are. A coward. I don't see why i should bother trying to make a gullible and irrational person, who is clearly also a coward, see sense."

I just don't feel like giving a name, because I don't plan on using this account. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not going to call you evil or stupid for being an atheist (agnostic maybe?), but I will try to show you that this is not the way to go, especialy if you actually want to make an impression on people that you are indeed smart (which I'm sure you are). I really don't see how gullible can come into the picture for me when you seem to be the one who has accepted an idea that cannot be proven, which also happens to be one that is easily acceptable to those who have such an obvious and irrational fear of god (or God) as you do.

Not that this is a bad thing, as many people of this state have been turned back towards the truth. But as long as you are spewing such garbage as me all you are doing is in fact just trying to (subconciously maybe) drive me away. I don't think you really want to hear the truth, and when you do (if you are still in your current state of mind at least) you will simply ignore it. This puts quite a negative image of your mind as to whether you actually want to learn or not. In other words, it gives you an image of one who does not want to learn because they are afraid they are wrong in what they think. This really makes me question who is the gullible and irrational one around here, and as long as you think that way there is little to no hopee of me getting anything through to you.

Sorry, but according to your ideas and the way in which you "prove" them the almighty god which you have so unreasoningly named "logic" apparently comitted suicide a long time ago... about the time the universe began, but some would say shortly before that.

Well I'm convinced. Let's start a petition to do away with all those useless user-names. Get the moderators to set the site up so that only Researcher numbers are ever show. In fact, get them to assign people a new Researcher number with each post so that no-one has any idea who is talking to who.

I suppose it would be pointless at this late stage in the debate to ask how a literal (or indeed metaphorical) reading of the Bible is squared with such things as radiometric isochrons showing that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old?

Researcher 187177

PS - apologies in advance if my reply to your reply (assuming you're still there) is slow, I only get web access every few weeks.

PPS - It is entirely correct to say that matter can be created or destroyed by converting it to/from energy.

You a very good point. The bible (indirectly) states the age of the earth at 4000 years. This is inconsistant with scientific evidence. The funniest thing is how creationists come up with scientific reasons for this. For example, i have heard that Noah's Flood caused such a large amount of pressure that all the isotopes got changed, so carbon dating etc is all wrong. Makes me laugh everytime.

Matter/Energy converstion is well known, and happens all the time, esp. at a quantum level. I'm not sure what that was a reply to though, as i haven't read the backlog in some time...

Tango

It's from Post 11. I nearly fell off my chair when C.S. Lewis was described as 'unbiased' in Post 14 with regard to Christianity!

Gif

CS Lewis wrote allegories, for crying out loud!

Tango

Just a couple of points on this conversation.

Reverting to snide comments and insults only displays a lack of respect for people who have differing opinions/beliefs to yourself, does nothing to get your point across to the opposite party, and demeans the whole process of argument and discussion.

To the scientists among you:
People who believe in the process and theories of modern science need to acknowledge that science does not hold all the answers to everything AT THE MOMENT. Therefore, when you come up against an argument such as what existed before the Big Bang occurred, unless Physics has a tenable theory, you need to acknowledge that you simply do not know. There is nothing wrong with that. At least the philosophy and the process of the scientific method enables continued thought and experiment that may allow us to possibly come up with a viable answer some day. In my opinion, this is a far more respectable attitiude to take than trying to make up some ideas of what may be the truth, based on no evidence whatsoever. That is no better than the religious fundamentalists who reason that anything that cannot be answered by rational science at present (such as the cause of the creation of the universe and events prior to the Big Bang) MUST be due to God. In so doing, you are only creating your own personal belief/faith system which is based on no valid evidence whatsoever. Please leave that belief system to the religious institutions. After all, history has shown that that is the downfall of religion, such as is shown by the initial attitude of the Church to Copernicus, Gallileo, Darwin etc., only for the Church to backtrack when the weight of scientific evidence becomes too strong for it to be refuted by the established religious dogma. (Of course, as is shown by this article, there will always be religious fundamentalists who will retain their views regarding Creation v. Evolution etc).

To the religious people among you:
It may be true that some modern scientific theories may be compatible with events described in the Bible (or whatever religious book you may adhere to), but that does no automatically imply that these theories are proof of the validity of these religious texts. Similarly, as I have mentioned above, lack of current scientific evidence does not automatically imply the intervention of or even the existence of God. It is also a flawed policy to back up your own scientific reasoning by looking to the Bible for proof, because that will only end up in a positive feedback cycle for you, and discredit your arguments with the atheist scientific community. (Not that all scientists are necessarily atheist, of course, but I hope you see the point I'm trying to make). As you (may) have such a strong belief/conviction in the writings of the Bible, you may not be able to properly scrutinise its teachings in an unbiased manner. True scientific scepticism should be unbiased, and open to all suggestions, but should adhere to beliefs based on the current available evidence, in contrast to religious dogma which is based on no more than religious authority, cultural tradition, and initially personal revelation. I felt that this unbiased scepticism was also sadly lacking in the arguments of the "scientists" in this conversation.

Karl

i hold the belief that as a thiest, you have no right to say that what i believe makes any more or less sense that what you believe.

plus i believe in the infinitely powerful, non exisent god. don't laugh, he'll smite you.

Hmm, I read the previous entries regarding creationism and clicked through one of the links to this article so I did get that it was a basic example of what scientologists believe. You did make it clear at the top of your post but maybe if you put in actual quotes from creationsits and reference those that would be more effective?