2248 replies to this topic

[Flamescale]

Unless there's some part of the definition of species that says "Species also ignore the laws of mathematics," then there is a first of a species.

... what is this... oh god...

I give up, I'm going to go do something less painful, such as sticking my hand in the toaster.

Edited by Flamescale, 11 April 2010 - 02:00 PM.

[Rob`]

I'm used to ()s being used in computer science. I didn't know you were using interval notation. Anyways, we know that min(0,whatever) exist even if we are not able to say what it is. We know it to be some number infinitely close to 0 and that it exists in the realm of real numbers.

You know what we call a number infinitely close to zero? Zero. There is no number greater than zero which is "infinitely close" to zero.

Let me prove it to you.

Let c=min(0,infinity) => c/2 member of (0,infinity) and c/2<c, Contradiction => min(0,infinity) is undefined.

Which is exactly why there is a first human. We can't necessarily say who the first human was, but it must exist.

Unless there's some part of the definition of species that says "Species also ignore the laws of mathematics," then there is a first of a species.

This Argumentum Ad Nauseum is getting tedious. You're consistently refusing to address our argument and simply blindly restating your already refuted statements.

[way2lazy2care]

You know what we call a number infinitely close to zero? Zero. There is no number greater than zero which is "infinitely close" to zero.

By we do you mean the mathematically inept?

the equation 1/n=x for n>0 gets infinitely close to zero but never equals zero.

Let me prove it to you.

Let c=min(0,infinity) => c/2 member of (0,infinity) and c/2<c, Contradiction => min(0,infinity) is undefined.

dude. there are a crap load of functions that get infinitely close to but never reach a number. The minimum of any exclusive interval wouldn't exist if your proof were true.

the value is also not undefined and exists in the interval (0,1). Your proof errs because once you divide by 2 and get a number less than c, that becomes c so c=c/2 on into infinity.

This Argumentum Ad Nauseum is getting tedious. You're consistently refusing to address our argument and simply blindly restating your already refuted statements.

they haven't been refuted. I gave a mathematical proof that there must be a first that has yet to be replied to in any significant way.

[Rob`]

By we do you mean the mathematically inept?

Excuse me how many mathematics degrees are on you? Zero? Huh that's one less than me isn't that interesting? Just so you know this isn't even a debate. I am right. The arguments I'm sharing with you are derived directly from what I've learned in analysis. You trying to argue with me on this is like a child insisting to his mother that 4>5. I'm only persisting with this because you trying to use your flawed understanding of mathematics to prove a false point upsets me. Also I feel the weird need to educate you. It will pass I'm sure.

the equation 1/n=x for n>0 gets infinitely close to zero but never equals zero.

Yes as n->infinity,x->0, so? No matter how small x gets it will always be capable of getting smaller. Therefore the minimum value of x is undefined. This is so trivially true and yet you're trying to argue with it. My mind is boggled.

dude. there are a crap load of functions that get infinitely close to but never reach a number.

Yes I know, that is when limits tend to be considered useful. eg lim(n->infinity)(1/n)=0. This doesn't support your argument. With these functions no matter how close you get to "a number" you can always get closer.

The minimum of any exclusive interval wouldn't exist if your proof were true.

Oh for gods sake.

Let d,c be real and d>c

min(c,d)=min{every number between c and d} is undefined.
min[c,d)=min{c and every number between c and d}=c

This is as trivial as it gets.

the value is also not undefined and exists in the interval (0,1). Your proof errs because once you divide by 2 and get a number less than c, that becomes c so c=c/2 on into infinity.

No the only value of c for which c/2=c is c=0. There is no other value of c for which that equation holds. I don't think you understand what I did so here's a step by step analysis of my argument.

Let c=min(0,infinity). This line sets up the assumption that min(0,infinity) exists and for convenient algebra lets c equal that number. I am making this assumption so that when I apply mathematical reasoning to it and end up with something contradicting the assumption I will know that the assumption is false.

Because c is positive and 2>1 we can say that c/2<c. This is true for all positive numbers, no matter how close you get to zero.

Because c and 2 are both positive c/2 is also positive so it falls into the set (0,infinity).

If c=min(0,infinity) then there is no number d in (0, infinity) such that d<c. c/2<c and is in (0,infinity) so min(0,infinity) can not exist.

Do you get it now?

Oh probably not let me google this for you.

http://www.google.co...c... n&gs_rfai=

Notice how plenty of people who understand maths a lot better than you don't agree with you. I wonder why that is...

they haven't been refuted. I gave a mathematical proof that there must be a first that has yet to be replied to in any significant way.

You combined a deeply flawed understanding of mathematics (I've explained why it's flawed) with a flawed understanding of what a species is (everybody and their mother has explained why it's flawed) and you insist on thinking you're right.

Edited by Rob`, 11 April 2010 - 05:37 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

Excuse me how many mathematics degrees are on you? Zero? Huh that's one less than me isn't that interesting? Just so you know this isn't even a debate. I am right. The arguments I'm sharing with you are derived directly from what I've learned in analysis. You trying to argue with me on this is like a child insisting to his mother that 4>5. I'm only persisting with this because you trying to use your flawed understanding of mathematics to prove a false point upsets me. Also I feel the weird need to educate you. It will pass I'm sure.

I have a degree in applied math and computer science dude.

Yes as n->infinity,x->0, so? No matter how small x gets it will always be capable of getting smaller. Therefore the minimum value of x is undefined. This is so trivially true and yet you're trying to argue with it. My mind is boggled.

no. The equation never equals zero. The limit of the equation equals zero, but the actual equation will never equal 0. Stopped reading the rest because you are talking to me like I'm 5 when you didn't even read what I said correctly.

[Rob`]

I have a degree in applied math and computer science dude.

So stats, mechanics, modeling etc? Never the properties of real numbers? Never what the minimum of a set is? Sorry but that counts for nothing.

no. The equation never equals zero.

Are you just trolling or in all your years of applied maths have you never seen -> before? For clarification "as x->infinity, 1/x->0" is just another way of saying as x gets bigger, 1/x gets closer to zero. I never send 1/x could equal zero.

The limit of the equation equals zero, but the actual equation will never equal 0. Stopped reading the rest because you are talking to me like I'm 5 when you didn't even read what I said correctly.

No it's you that thinks I said 1/x could equal 0 when I didn't and sorry about treating you like you're five, your inability to understand a simple proof by contradiction is slightly frustrating.

[retrovirus]

just get way2lazy2care to explain how he/she believes speciation occurs.
Once you realize how his/her understanding is flawed, you can refute from there.
Enough with the math concepts.
They are not necessary because they are rooted in a flawed understanding of the concept of speciation and thus are a part of a bad argument.

edit: nevermind, you guys tried like 3 pages back.

Edited by retrovirus, 11 April 2010 - 07:10 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

just get way2lazy2care to explain how he/she believes speciation occurs.
Once you realize how his/her understanding is flawed, you can refute from there.
Enough with the math concepts.
They are not necessary because they are rooted in a flawed understanding of the concept of speciation and thus are a part of a bad argument.

edit: nevermind, you guys tried like 3 pages back.

I think species occur the same way they do. I never said they didn't.

Are you just trolling or in all your years of applied maths have you never seen -> before? For clarification "as x->infinity, 1/x->0" is just another way of saying as x gets bigger, 1/x gets closer to zero. I never send 1/x could equal zero.

The fact that you replied to me disagreeing when I said 1/x never equals zero is how you said 1/x could equal zero.

I appreciate your apology though.

[Riddle]

.

Edited by Riddle, 11 April 2010 - 10:55 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

Way2lazy, it is commonly known in mathematical analysis, that as n in x=1/n goes to infinity, x approaches zero for convergence series (in this case, that there was a first man, it would have to be a convergent series and not diverge). so much so that it can be considered zero, for arguments sake and also to make life simplier for mathematicians.
This has been explained by Rob who happens to be studying in the field of maths that covers infinite series such as this. For me (im an electrical engineer), Applicable maths is like grade 12 maths. I do realise computer science does touch abit on field of maths, but im sure you have never had the need to apply it to real life problems in your field. You need to LISTEN and read up more and do less of arguing your points without THINKING it through.

"The easiest way that an infinite series can converge is if all the an are zero for n sufficiently large. Such a series can be identified with a finite sum, so it is only infinite in a trivial sense." http://en.wikipedia....nvergent_series

that's nice, but I never said it didn't approach zero. In fact I said it approached zero but never equaled zero.

[Riddle]

dude. there are a crap load of functions that get infinitely close to but never reach a number. The minimum of any exclusive interval wouldn't exist if your proof were true.

the value is also not undefined and exists in the interval (0,1). Your proof errs because once you divide by 2 and get a number less than c, that becomes c so c=c/2 on into infinity.

convergence series. Someone wasnt paying attention in class because im pretty sure they teach this to computer science students.

they haven't been refuted. I gave a mathematical proof that there must be a first that has yet to be replied to in any significant way.

Yes we have.
You gave your flawed understanding of maths and tried to pass it off as proof. First off, there isnt any compelling argument you are making with maths because you have got ur maths wrong and we have spent an entire page correcting it.

If you really want a refutation. Here goes.
A group of human species has a limit from 0 to infinity. Anything classified as a human species falls within this group. This is defined as the series. In convergence series, any equation with a limit (0,infinity) tends to 0. We can then keep dividing the series by 1/n where n is any number from 0 to infinity. Technically, we can continue dividing the series by 1/n infinitely because we never touch 0, only tend to it. Therefore, there can never be a first number in a convergence series as that first number can be divided again by 1/n and so on so forth. Hence, why there can never be a first human.

Edited by Riddle, 11 April 2010 - 11:28 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

convergence series. Someone wasnt paying attention in class because im pretty sure they teach this to computer science students.

just because it converges to a point doesn't mean it ever equals something. 1/n will never equal 0.'

didn't read the rest because you obviously didn't read anything I said.

[Riddle]

just because it converges to a point doesn't mean it ever equals something. 1/n will never equal 0.'

didn't read the rest because you obviously didn't read anything I said.

yeh, whatever. Not the point of discussion in this religion topic. Just another side-line sweep you are so good at. And NO, you should go read what I wrote. I agree with you that 1/n will never equal 0. The convergence series I posted is to show you that a number can be divided to make it smaller within a set limit. That set limit is (0, infinity) therefore you can have infinite numbers. You really are hopeless..

Yes as n->infinity,x->0, so? No matter how small x gets it will always be capable of getting smaller. Therefore the minimum value of x is undefined. This is so trivially true and yet you're trying to argue with it. My mind is boggled.

Rob already pointed it out and so have I. Maths has already proven your point , a first human being to be incorrect. What other weak arguments you want to being up? What other excuse you want to make for your own ignorance?

Edited by Riddle, 11 April 2010 - 11:43 PM.

[way2lazy2care]

yeh, whatever. Not the point of discussion in this religion topic. Just another side-line sweep you are so good at. And NO, you should go read what I wrote. I agree with you that 1/n will never equal 0. The convergence series I posted is to show you that a number can be divided to make it smaller within a set limit. That set limit is (0, infinity) therefore you can have infinite numbers. You really are hopeless..

I still know exactly where the discussion is. Either you or rob thought that human races were the result of homonid interbreeding, then flamescale came in here and went on about how there can't be a first of a species.

Don't act like this is getting out of hand solely on my accord. I didn't bring up either of the sidetracks we got into. Flamescale brought up one, and the math was originally brought up by either you or rob I can't remember which.

to go back to species I will restate the proof so that you can try to disprove it.

Given a time scale of infinite accuracy, it's infinitely improbable that 2 humans can be born at the same time.

We know for a fact that at one time there were 0 humans. We know for a fact that n >0 where n is a counting number representing the population of all humans.

As each addition of a human is n+1, and no two humans can be added at the same time, working backwards there must have been 1 human at some point. The point and individual are trivial, but they do exist.

[Riddle]

I still know exactly where the discussion is. Either you or rob thought that human races were the result of homonid interbreeding, then flamescale came in here and went on about how there can't be a first of a species.

Again, putting words in my mouth. Noone in here has suggested that the human race was the direct result of homonid interbreeding. We have gotten some traits from other races, but to suggest that we are the product of species interbreeding is entirely a different point and a wrong one. We have our own characteristics that are different from the competing human races. This difference in human species leads us to the next point.

There cant be a first human species, because there was another version of humans that preceded it. This is the essence of evolution. we EVOLVED. From apes on all fours, to apes that stood on 2, to apes that had larger brains, to apes that could think cognitively, then eventually we look like we do today. There cannot be a first, because evolution is a process in stages and each stage is key in the make up of our composition. You have clearly made your assumption that human race started off from some type of Adam and Eve. This contradicts with evolution because that means the first process was created and not evolved. Your definition of ID is creationism and a psuedo-science. End of Discussion as far as Im concern. You are delusional if you continue to persist that your theory holds true as it violates the principles in theory of evolution.

Don't act like this is getting out of hand solely on my accord. I didn't bring up either of the sidetracks we got into. Flamescale brought up one, and the math was originally brought up by either you or rob I can't remember which.

YEs. Bloody hell, this has been your accord for being ignorant and incompetent in the fields of discussion, from evolution to maths to science to general knowledge everything except your bible. You have derailed the debate by arguing over small details, missing entire points, and blatantly refusing to read the rebuttals laid out.

to go back to species I will restate the proof so that you can try to disprove it.

Given a time scale of infinite accuracy, it's infinitely improbable that 2 humans can be born at the same time.

We know for a fact that at one time there were 0 humans. We know for a fact that n >0 where n is a counting number representing the population of all humans.

As each addition of a human is n+1, and no two humans can be added at the same time, working backwards there must have been 1 human at some point. The point and individual are trivial, but they do exist.

So where do you determine when was the start of humans. Because I can tell you right now, that that start had another start that preceded it, and that start that preceded the start you had in mind had another start before it and so on so forth to infinity. Your mathematical assumption is irrelevant if you cannot determine your starting point.

The convergence series explains why there cannot be a first human because before that human, there was another first human, and before that there was another, and another, and then for good measure, another. Another times infinity. The only way you can say that that was the first human and end this loop is to determine your definition of a human. The problem being, this definition is entirely subjective and differs with what you percieve as human.

Even if you determine the first human, so what. That first human was the product of evolution and was not created.

This statement leads us back to topic. Evolution works fine without an omnipotent being. Therefore, it does not matter if that being exists or not. It is not important. I also notice that every argument you make begins with "God created this, then let it fend for itself, but he knew the outcome and determined it before hand." or "God exists because we cant prove it doesnt". Quite frankly, that is the misguided logical reasoning and rational thought your are showing to me.

It is also ridiculous to spend an entire life worshipping this being with a question mark on its existence. That is entirely up to you to do so. But dont try to pass your superstitions as something truthful and be vengefully hurt if proper logical reasoning doesnt agree with it.

Edited by Riddle, 12 April 2010 - 03:39 AM.

[userpjx]

Don't want to intrude, way2lazy2care is having enough trouble as it is, but I just want to thank some of the early posters in this thread for making me realize I was an atheist. Some of the good logical reasoning in this thread really helped me when I was having a real hard time. Thanks all of you.

[way2lazy2care]

Again, putting words in my mouth. Noone in here has suggested that the human race was the direct result of homonid interbreeding. We have gotten some traits from other races, but to suggest that we are the product of species interbreeding is entirely a different point and a wrong one. We have our own characteristics that are different from the competing human races. This difference in human species leads us to the next point.

I didn't put words in your mouth. Someone brought it up, and after the reply we got sidetracked. The human races are all homo sapien sapiens.

There cant be a first human species, because there was another version of humans that preceded it. This is the essence of evolution. we EVOLVED. From apes on all fours, to apes that stood on 2, to apes that had larger brains, to apes that could think cognitively, then eventually we look like we do today. There cannot be a first, because evolution is a process in stages and each stage is key in the make up of our composition. You have clearly made your assumption that human race started off from some type of Adam and Eve. This contradicts with evolution because that means the first process was created and not evolved. Your definition of ID is creationism and a psuedo-science. End of Discussion as far as Im concern. You are delusional if you continue to persist that your theory holds true as it violates the principles in theory of evolution.

there wasn't always a human species that preceded it. If that were the case, single celled organisms would be a human species.

YEs. Bloody hell, this has been your accord for being ignorant and incompetent in the fields of discussion, from evolution to maths to science to general knowledge everything except your bible. You have derailed the debate by arguing over small details, missing entire points, and blatantly refusing to read the rebuttals laid out.

one person cannot derail a debate. It takes two people to argue. In the case of this thread it takes four.

So where do you determine when was the start of humans. Because I can tell you right now, that that start had another start that preceded it, and that start that preceded the start you had in mind had another start before it and so on so forth to infinity. Your mathematical assumption is irrelevant if you cannot determine your starting point.

the start is trivial. I was arguing that it existed.

Even if you determine the first human, so what. That first human was the product of evolution and was not created.

I am not a creationist. I have said this multiple times.

This statement leads us back to topic. Evolution works fine without an omnipotent being. Therefore, it does not matter if that being exists or not. It is not important. I also notice that every argument you make begins with "God created this, then let it fend for itself, but he knew the outcome and determined it before hand." or "God exists because we cant prove it doesnt". Quite frankly, that is the misguided logical reasoning and rational thought your are showing to me.

It is also ridiculous to spend an entire life worshipping this being with a question mark on its existence. That is entirely up to you to do so. But dont try to pass your superstitions as something truthful and be vengefully hurt if proper logical reasoning doesnt agree with it.

And this brings me back to my original argument. The lack of influence does not disprove existence.

I'm also not trying to pass on anything. I am trying to bring a non-science-is-the-only-answer perspective to a debate that is generally a bunch of people going "yay science... god is stupid"

[Flamescale]

there wasn't always a human species that preceded it. If that were the case, single celled organisms would be a human species.

o_o go reread my paint analogy

[way2lazy2care]

o_o go reread my paint analogy

We can say definitely that there was a point where there were 0 humans. If we go backwards by generation infinitely (assumption made by saying every human was produced by a human) we should have n>0 humans that are producing all these humans; however, we will eventually get to a point where there are no humans (or no life whatsoever). That is a contradiction that every human was produced by another human.

you can also feel free to point out any errors in the proof on the last page if you want to continue the origin of a singular species debate.

[Flamescale]

Okay, you need to actually think about what those labels like "human" mean; specifically, the process by which they were created and what the implications of that process are.

Then maybe you will realize how mind-bogglingly stupid your argument is. I won't get my hopes up, though.