Its ok if you hated algebra. Although wonderful, math is not for everyone. And that is fine. Ninety percent of people out there, plenty of them wildly and happily successful, will never need to use math in their entire life. For those that like it and are adept at mathematical concepts, plenty of fields like the natural sciences, engineering, actuarial sciences, biostatisticians, and others need it all the time in order to make progress in their fields.
simon17
JoinedPosts by simon17
-
76
Do You Like or Dislike Algebra? Why and Why not?
by Scott77 injuly 28, 2012is algebra necessary?by andrew hacker .
a typical american school day finds some six million high school students and two million college freshmen struggling with algebra.
in both high school and college, all too many students are expected to fail.
-
-
-
195
Theistic Evolution
by cofty inthoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
-
-
simon17
You still have to overcome objections to why the Bible completely fails scientifically before we even get to evolutionary evidence and for why you dismiss the ample evidence of the fossil record as found in my last post. But so you don't think I'm coy, I'll give you one other line of evidence.
Endogenous retroviruses which are remanants of past parasitic viral infections left over in our genome. A significant portion of our genome are these viruses. These of course, don't make any sense being here under creationist viewpoint but thats a different point. Not often does a parasitic virus embed its genetic code into our own in such a way that it will be passed on to all future offspring but it does happen. If we find the same virus in the same chromosonal positioning in two animals, that will good evidence that those two animals had a common ancestor. So when we look at all the endogenous retrograde viruses what do we find. Some are unique to humans and to other species because they are newer. Some our unique to just us and chimps, in the same chromosonal positions. Some unique to just us chimps and gorillas, again in the exact same spots in the genome. Some unique to these three and orangutans. Some unique to these four and gibbon, etc etc. Just in the exact same places. And these relationships are exactly the evolutionary order that all other lines of evidence suggested before anyone even knew of (or compared retroviruses). What we don't find, not once, is something like the human and the gibbon sharing a retrovirus without the gorilla, chimp and orangutan containing the same retrovirus. This clearly shows the relationships of how these species came from common ancestors of various times in the distant past.
You can read more: Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277.
-
195
Theistic Evolution
by cofty inthoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
-
-
simon17
"It has been tested in a million ways."What ways please identify. Please do not say fruit fly mutation experiments...
"The theory is shown true when you consider the genetic evidence of living creatures". What evidence points soley to evolution in direct conflict with the biblical creation model... please identify
"the chemical evidence in living creatures" What evidence points soley to evolution in direct conflict with the biblical creation model... please identify
Well two things. #1 You have to tell me what your bibilical creation model is becuase depending on how much they realize Genesis is entirely compromised by modern science, they believe random parts of it to be true and others allegorical. #2, this is kind of the point you read a book. There are many books, all filled with evidence. I obviously haven't memorized it all. Based on your answer to #1, I know some and I can easily look up some others. But I'm not going to do as good a job as books devoted to showing this evidence. Also I'm not going to sit her for 100 hours typing out a million lines of evidence for you.
"the fossil evidence" Give me a break. If you really want to go there raise this again...
I didn't raise it the first time (I guess?) but I don't know what you have against it? You have great examples of transitional fossils. Just look at the humanoid transitional line, the line of fossils showing fish slowly coming onto land (and many many others that are not as obvious and interesting). Also the fact that fossils fall in evolutionary strata, consistently, without error, across the entire world. Fossils are a very good (but completely unnecessary) source of evolutionary evidence.
"Suppose you had a pharmaceutical drug. The biology says, in theory, it should reduce cholesterol. The math checks out. The animal experiments check out. They test the drug on 1000 people and, indeed, it reduces cholesterol on all of them. Do you say, "wait a second. you've only tested the drug on .0000001% of the world's population. There's no way to say that it reduces cholesterol. Who knows what it does. Its just faith if you think it reduces cholesterol on the other 99.9999999% of the population. I will only accept that it reduces cholesterol in a human being if you test it on 50% of the world!!!! That is absurd. Yet it is the level of rigor you are requiring of evolutionary theory. Already every piece of data supports evolutionary theory from every line of evidence." Simon this is a very poor analogy and misleading to boot. As mankind all come from the same two progenitors we all share similarities. If one drug works on one then there is a good chance it will work on another. If it works on the majority of a sample population there is a good chance it will work on the majority of the mass population. But were simply stating the obvious. We already know all this context in the drug/man scenario. But this line of reasoning does not work with other examples where context is not known. So for instance if you see the following math - 1+2=3. 2+3=5. 3+4=7. Whats next? You might be right in saying 4+5=9. But you might also be totally wrong if you do not know the context of what you are looking at. What is the 100 equation and its answer? Will the math continue in like manner when into the billions? From 3 small equations it is remiss for anyone to bank their mortgage that when we are onto the trillionth equation it will still follow the same pattern. It might, but there are a trillion possibilities in between where it might alter. We do not know the context. Micro evolution sits just as nicely in the biblical creation model as it does evolutionary theory. What if the biblical creation model is the correct context!?!!! I repeat micro evolution does not conflict with the bible. At best you start with a 50/50 guess which is the correct conclusion, but you then have to weigh up the other evidence.
See but you just don't understand how statistics and science works.
BTW, if you like sequences here is a better analogy. Suppose someone says they have an unknown sequence, but they have a hypothesis that they think the sequence is going to be the Fibbonnaci Sequence. So you say ok I'll look for evidence. There are a million digits given, of which you right now know none. But somehow uncover what the 5th number of the sequence is, and its 5. Ok, that checks out. It doesn't prove anything, but it checks out. THat 5 could belong to a countless number of other sequences. Next, you somehow find out the 100th number of the sequence, and it happens to be 354224848179261915075. Correct again for Fibonnaci. Now what were the chances of that? Incredibly small. Still it is possible it is another sequence but unlikely now. You find another number, the 300th, and find it is 222232244629420445529739893461909967206666939096499764990979600. Again, perfect match for Fibonnaci. Suppose you find 50 random numbers in the million and they all fit Fibonnaci sequence. How confident are you the sequence is Fibonnaci. Yes there is 99.9999% unknowns that could be wrong. Yes there are GAPS. But all we needed was ONE wrong number to disprove the entire Fibonnaci hypothesis and every number fit. Thats how it is. Because of the way science works, if tons of information fits a hypothesis from different fields, its very strong evidence because only one bit of information needed to be false to disprove the whole works.
Ok, the important point now, though, is the evidence for evolution that does not fit Biblical Creation. Like I said you need to tell me your views. But lets start with some general scientific problems in Genesis before we even get to creation.evolution.
*Genesis 1: First day light. Third day plants and vegetation. Fourth day, God CREATES the sun, moon and stars. That is irreconciable with averything we know about science, astronomy, and how a solar system is created.
* Genesis 1: Fifth day birds. Sixth day land animals. This is backwards and every fossil ever found can attest to this fact. Birds do not come before land animals in the fossil record. Ever. Anywhere in any strata on earth.
* Age of man: Bible chronology puts it at 6k years. This is clearly shown false by zillions of archealogical and geological finds, their ages confirmed by dating methods which are vast, numerous, and all confirm the accuracy of one another. Carbon-14, Chlorine-36, Argon-Argon, Tree Rings, Ice Cores, Uranium-Thorium, and others. This is again, in direct odds with all science.
-
-
-
simon17
The answer is when the survived 1925. That second major, specific failed prophecy within a decade was either going to break them entirely, or it was going to whittle the group down to a hard-core nucleus of believers who would never be swayed away from the group's accuracy no matter what the blunder. And that is what happened.
Also this was when they realized that specifically saying they were sure about any given year was a terrible and dangerous idea. To a much lesser extent they repeated this blunder in 1975 but it was not nearly to the extent of 1925. So they learned from this to not be so radical which helped them in the future.
All in all, surivivng 1925 meant JWs would continue as a High Control Group for a loooooooooooong time.
-
101
Help with Mathematical Concepts, Not Arithmetic
by Band on the Run inmy math background is embarassing.
my public education was very sad.
although i received good grades in college track math courses, i never understood the underlying ideas or motivations.
-
-
simon17
my college education played a big role in my decision to never set foot in a kingdom hall again.
Of course that is maybe the biggest thing you can get out of mathematics, probably moreso than most of it not all other disciplines. You do not accept something that is told to you. You must prove it. Everything must build on top of proven things for you to be able to accept it. It sounds like you were fascinated with doing this in Analysis. I, for my part, hated analysis, but in the end the lesson is valuable and unmistakeable. You simply cannot accept the WT world as it is given if your mind is mathematically (or probably just scientifically) trained.
-
101
Help with Mathematical Concepts, Not Arithmetic
by Band on the Run inmy math background is embarassing.
my public education was very sad.
although i received good grades in college track math courses, i never understood the underlying ideas or motivations.
-
-
simon17
Not only that, but I learned more about math through physics than I learned about math from taking math.
Although this may seem true, unfortunately a lot of the boring fundamentals (your arithmatic your algebra your equation solving principles etc) were learned in those math classes or else you wouldn't have appreciated the physics nearly as much. The tricky part about early math is that almost all of the most fascinating applications involve a lot more math than the students are possibly ready for. But you are right that physics is just a glorious subject in applied math.
As they say: Biology is really chemistry. Chemistry is really physics. And Physics is really math.
-
35
Have You Ever Spoken To An Elder About Your True Feelings About "The Truth"?
by minimus ini've has conversations with certain elder friends but i never gave them a total pummeling, at least i haven't yet.. what about you?.
-
-
simon17
I have. I am not DF's or anything but I met him and we talked about why I was inactive. I was very coy about the whole thing in the beginning and insisted I didn't want to cause waves by speaking about how I felt about certain thigns. He assured me there was no risk with him and he appreciated my discretion in not trying to overtly cause others to doubt their faith. I gave him tons of things I didn't believe in and explained why. He thought I had some good points, some he didn't believe, and a lot came down to his believing that having strong values was very difficult to find elsewhere. Overall, he was very cool about it and wished me happiness.
-
101
Help with Mathematical Concepts, Not Arithmetic
by Band on the Run inmy math background is embarassing.
my public education was very sad.
although i received good grades in college track math courses, i never understood the underlying ideas or motivations.
-
-
simon17
Does anyone know anything about the Courant Institute at NYU? I think it is NYU.
Yes its one of the very best math departments in the world. What did you want to know about it?
-
55
No atheist in A fox hole.
by jam infirst of all iam a agnostic.
i,am curious, you who are atheist.
what or how do you deal with a life or death situation.
-
-
simon17
It makes perfect sense for people to need comfort in extreme situations. That, of course, is immaterial to the question of whether god exists. But when there is no one else to turn to, it makes sense to make up something to turn to for strength for some people.
-
195
Theistic Evolution
by cofty inthoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
-
-
simon17
So we agree that nobody has ever seen/observed/tested macro evolution.
No, it has not been directly observed as occurring in 150 years. It has been tested in a million ways. Science tests things it cannot directly observe all the time.
This is why i say it is an extrapolation theory.
That is incorrect. Extrapolation is going beyond the data to make conclusions outside the scope of data points you are using. If we had ONLY seen examples of micro-evolution, and then hypothesized, 'well if there are a billion year regress of little adaptations, those woud probably add up to big changes over time' with no corroborating evidence, then that alone by itself would be extrapolation.
But no, that is not all the evidence there is. That is just the hypothesis. The theory is shown true when you consider the genetic evidence of living creatures, the chemical evidence in living creatures, the fossil evidence, the geological evidence, etc. It ALL shows that the original hypothesis is true. We have billions of years of evidence. No one is extrapolating fossil remains. They are there, from hundreds of millions of years ago, all showing exactly what every other line of evidence shows: that evolution happened.
Darwin et al provide countless data demonstrating micro evolution and adaptation.
Forget about Darwin. All he had was the IDEA. Nothing was proven in Darwin's day. It was just a hypothesis at that point and the evidence would come later with the thousands of scientists that have tested and refined his postulation over time.
But over the evolutionary cycle this reprents about 0.00000001% of the whole evolutionary process postulated. It is remiss that "scientists" and i use the term loosely use such minimal data to support the other 99.999999 of theory that they have a pre-conceived notion about. This is why i say it is extrapolation theory. This is my point. I hear what you say about continental drift theory and i accept the analogy is a good one. On the latter you may be right. You could also be right about macro evolution but i personally disagree. A stock market analyst can guess on two companies using 0.0000001% of statistical data and other facts. He may predict both right, neither, one but not the other. My other point here is who would put their mortgage on an analyst getting his prediction right on such minimal data. If the data proved say 50% that the evolution theories were tested etc. then it may be a slightly different story. 70/30 even more so. But as it is we have 0.00001% fact and 99.999999 extrapolation THEORY. Dawkins believes this theory is well documented like other theories such as the earth revolving around the sun and/or gravity. Really this is a very great lie and should be clarified as such. My final point to you on the subject is you may be right or maybe wrong like the stock market analyst. But consider that the 0.000001% data also sits nicely with the biblical creation model. God created each one according to their kind and designed them to adapt to their environment, as per the data. I could be right or wrong. We both have faith.
No, not really. Thats not how science (or statistcs) works at all.
Suppose you had a pharmaceutical drug. The biology says, in theory, it should reduce cholesterol. The math checks out. The animal experiments check out. They test the drug on 1000 people and, indeed, it reduces cholesterol on all of them. Do you say, "wait a second. you've only tested the drug on .0000001% of the world's population. There's no way to say that it reduces cholesterol. Who knows what it does. Its just faith if you think it reduces cholesterol on the other 99.9999999% of the population. I will only accept that it reduces cholesterol in a human being if you test it on 50% of the world!!!! That is absurd. Yet it is the level of rigor you are requiring of evolutionary theory. Already every piece of data supports evolutionary theory from every line of evidence.