You're 100% correct, but no one can understand that

[antipunt]

(Not arguing for or against religiosity), but under the assumption that the Bible is true, the fall of man had to have been premeditated/planned. I have Christian friends who accept this, but many others that I have explained this to can't seem to wrap their head around the notion.

Ok, i know we are supposed to avoid religion and blah blah blah....

DO NOT take the bible literally, especially the Old Testament.

The stories are meant to contain hidden morals about how to live life.
For example, Genesis contains 2 stories describing creation, the first is meant to show that God is all powerful and the source of all things
The second is to show that God loves humanity and mistrusting God causes only suffering

Only the Historical books contain history, the historical books, like the gospels, Kings, and Acts

You don't really need to interpret the Old Testament literally to incorporate the notion of the 'fall of man'. It's supposed to explain original sin, and more specifically, why mankind needs to suffer (in other words, why we're all sinners, etc. ).

 

[seamusotorain]

I know that proof, and you are wrong, because you divided by zero in the proof

a=1 b=1

a=b

a[sup]2[/sup]=ab

a[sup]2[/sup]+ab=2ab

a[sup]2[/sup]+ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]=2ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]

ab-a[sup]2[/sup]=2ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]

1(ab-a[sup]2[/sup])=2(ab-a[sup]2[/sup])

1=2

Oh crap, this almost as bad as dividing by ZZZEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRooooo[sub]oooooooo...[/sub]*pop*

It's just pointing out a flaw in algebra, I think. The guy who showed me it is doing physics. Then again, your username is Datalord...

 

[ottenni]

I had a little trouble pointing out that catholics were Christians at one point. I don't blame people for not knowing that but my god it took them ages to understand. I had to compare it to grass.

 

[wizzerd229]

My 2nd grade Teacher of a Mom doesn't understand how a Square is also a rectangle.

 

[Zweiblumen]

Evolution. It's a Theory the same way that Gravity is a theory. Not that this is a common misunderstanding or anything, but die-hard, literal creationalists bug me.

It depends. Evolution by natural selection is a proven fact, but people have trouble with it on a larger scale.

Theory doesn't just mean "something uncertain."

I'll let Merriam-Webster explain:

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances - often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

The fact that creationists and quite a bit of other people just decide what theory in "Theory of Evolution" is annoys me greatly.

There's also the fact that while it's a "proven fact" it's still not completely certain. The most popular theories (i.e. the ones that are considered "right" or "proven") are usually just the ones that make the most sense (something that creationists fail to realize, the seem to prefer as little sense as possible >_>).

 

[rabidmidget]

I once had an argument with a friend of a friend who insisted that animals evolve to suit their environment on purpose, where I argued that evolution is due to natural selection.

The two sides were

1) Giraffes grew tall necks so they could reach taller plants

2)Giraffes grew tall necks because it was seen as a good genetic trait and was slowly passed down throughout generations and mutated until they had long necks.

 

[Cmwissy]

Recently two things I have /facepalmed over.


One; Myself - I was incredibly wrong about something and took me ages to figure it out and now I want to slap myself when I think of it.


Two; Watching one of Pat Condells' videos and a mad man was saying how the Jews secretly had gas bombs and microphones in our houses and poison in our food.

Nothing I could say could convince him he was wrong.

 

[WolfThomas]

I had a little trouble pointing out that catholics were Christians at one point. I don't blame people for not knowing that but my god it took them ages to understand. I had to compare it to grass.

Well technically they still are, I think a catholic would be quite offended if someone said they weren't a christian.

 

[ottenni]

I had a little trouble pointing out that catholics were Christians at one point. I don't blame people for not knowing that but my god it took them ages to understand. I had to compare it to grass.

Well technically they still are, I think a catholic would be quite offended if someone said they weren't a christian.

I know, i think i may have written that in a way that may not be clear. What i meant is that i had to explain it at one point. They thought that Catholics were not Christians. I hope that makes more sense.

 

[Muffinthraka]

Thanks for clearing up the bullet physics, it has always bothered me (partly because films over use the idea of a single bullet throwing someone back a long way). I agree with your arguement I often see a disscusion riddled with scientific flaws, get ready to post a response, then realise it's going to take forever to correct them all and probably no one will listen.

 

[funguy2121]

How Einstein worked out why it happens is astonishing.

How? Wikipedia only mentions the paper he wrote.

...I wouldn't call Wikipedia "factual."

 

[Domoslaf]

a=1 b=1

a=b

a[sup]2[/sup]=ab

a[sup]2[/sup]+ab=2ab

a[sup]2[/sup]+ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]=2ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]

ab-a[sup]2[/sup]=2ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]

1(ab-a[sup]2[/sup])=2(ab-a[sup]2[/sup])

1=2

Oh crap, this almost as bad as dividing by ZZZEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRooooo[sub]oooooooo...[/sub]*pop*

It's just pointing out a flaw in algebra, I think. The guy who showed me it is doing physics. Then again, your username is Datalord...

OMG, you've just proven that 0=0! Math genius!

 

[ben---neb]

Evolution. It's a Theory the same way that Gravity is a theory. Not that this is a common misunderstanding or anything, but die-hard, literal creationalists bug me.

Micro evolution - no problem. Macro evolution is where I take issue.

OP: I said that skin was waterproof and this guy argued against me. I asked him why it was he didn't swell up when it rained or why the water didn't cascade out his body. He still refused to admit he was wrong.

 

[aDuck]

in regards to the bullet-hits-helmet-and-breaks-neck discussion, i dont see how this is possible...

I had to explain several times that while it has an equal and opposite force, Force equals Mass times acceleration, the bullet had a tiny mass and a lot of acceleration, the gun had less acceleration due to it's heavier mass.

when the energy is transferred from bullet to head, the head has more, if not equal mass as the gun. this means that (if the gun has same mass as head) the head would move back the same amount as the gun. the more mass the head has, the less the bullet can affect it. the fact that the bullet is moving at such a speed doesnt matter, because as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel, it decelerates. IF the head was right at the muzzle of the gun, as said before, the head will only move back as far as the gun does.

EDIT:

And going back to your bullet hitting a helmet thing. A lot of the opposite force of a bullet it released in sound and light from the muzzle flash, not all of it goes into the kick back. So your friend was indeed wrong.

this doesnt matter. light is involved in the chemical reaction, and is not involved with the acceleration of the bullet. the sound that escapes is the gasses escaping the chamber after the bullet has left. the initial recoil has almost all of the opposite motion in it.

 

[Datalord]

I know that proof, and you are wrong, because you divided by zero in the proof

a=1 b=1

a=b

a[sup]2[/sup]=ab

a[sup]2[/sup]+ab=2ab

a[sup]2[/sup]+ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]=2ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]

ab-a[sup]2[/sup]=2ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]

1(ab-a[sup]2[/sup])=2(ab-a[sup]2[/sup])

1=2

Oh crap, this almost as bad as dividing by ZZZEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRooooo[sub]oooooooo...[/sub]*pop*

It's just pointing out a flaw in algebra, I think. The guy who showed me it is doing physics. Then again, your username is Datalord...

No, you ARE dividing by zero
a=b
ab=a[sup]2[/sup]
ab-a[sup]2[/sup]=0
so when you divide by (ab-a[sup]2[/sup]), you are dividing by zero, the flaw isn't with algebra, it's with the premise that an integer can be divided by zero

 

[ben---neb]

(Not arguing for or against religiosity), but under the assumption that the Bible is true, the fall of man had to have been premeditated/planned. I have Christian friends who accept this, but many others that I have explained this to can't seem to wrap their head around the notion.

Ok, i know we are supposed to avoid religion and blah blah blah....

DO NOT take the bible literally, especially the Old Testament.

The stories are meant to contain hidden morals about how to live life.
For example, Genesis contains 2 stories describing creation, the first is meant to show that God is all powerful and the source of all things
The second is to show that God loves humanity and mistrusting God causes only suffering

Only the Historical books contain history, the historical books, like the gospels, Kings, and Acts

Jesus took the Old Testament literally. Jesus is written about in the Gospels. Jesus is the Son of God as mentioned in the Gospels. Therefore what he says is 100% true. Therefore Old Testament is true.

The important thing to remember is that God wrote the Bible (using man as his tool to do so). Therefore it is accurate, true and anything contradicting it is false. It's God word against man's word. I choose God over man any day.

Also remember that science is only as good as the scientists behind it. Most scientists don't believe in God and therefore specifically set out to contradict what he says. So science is great until it tried to contradict the Bible.

 

[aDuck]

(Not arguing for or against religiosity), but under the assumption that the Bible is true, the fall of man had to have been premeditated/planned. I have Christian friends who accept this, but many others that I have explained this to can't seem to wrap their head around the notion.

Ok, i know we are supposed to avoid religion and blah blah blah....

DO NOT take the bible literally, especially the Old Testament.

The stories are meant to contain hidden morals about how to live life.
For example, Genesis contains 2 stories describing creation, the first is meant to show that God is all powerful and the source of all things
The second is to show that God loves humanity and mistrusting God causes only suffering

Only the Historical books contain history, the historical books, like the gospels, Kings, and Acts

Jesus took the Old Testament literally. Jesus is written about in the Gospels. Jesus is the Son of God as mentioned in the Gospels. Therefore what he says is 100% true. Therefore Old Testament is true.

The important thing to remember is that God wrote the Bible (using man as his tool to do so). Therefore it is accurate, true and anything contradicting it is false. It's God word against man's word. I choose God over man any day.

Also remember that science is only as good as the scientists behind it. Most scientists don't believe in God and therefore specifically set out to contradict what he says. So science is great until it tried to contradict the Bible.

ok, just one thing...

NOT MEANT TO BE A SPIRITUAL DISCUSSION!!!

that said, i would like to say the prophesies are 100% true (which is what Jesus quoted), but earlier stuff, like the fall of man doesn't give a lot of detail on what happened, and a lot is lost in translation between every translation of the Bible.

 

[Angerwing]

I had a guy try to convince me that the DotA song was about a thing in World of Warcraft. It's actually about a thing in Warcraft 3 (2 extremely different games), but even though he was close enough I decided to argue against him. Having played both DotA AND World of Warcraft, I was 100% sure that I was right, so I ended up betting him $20 that it wasn't from World of Warcraft.

He agreed.

Then I told him I had played both games, and got $20. I wasn't doing it to be a jackass, that guy was a tool and does that sort of thing to everyone ("NO WAY I'M RIGHT EVEN THOUGH I LACK ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE!").

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

That [i/]Physalia Physalis[/i] is not a jellyfish.

Spoiler: If you wondering, it looks like this:

[img/]http://pamiejane.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/portuguese-man-o-war.jpg[/img]
There, the Portugese Man O' War.

Learn something new every day.


Infact, thanks to everyone.

Been a learning experience for all.

 

[evilstonermonkey]

I tried to explain to my friends another scenario like the Monty Hall.
A woman has a baby. She later has another. One of the babies is a girl, what is the probability the other one is a Boy?
The "obvious" answer is 50%, but it isn't. After two babies the set could be,
Boy Boy
Boy Girl
Girl Boy
Girl Girl
Stating one is a girl, we eliminate Boy Boy. Selecting a remaining set, there is a 2 in 3 chance of picking a girl boy pair.
But, if a woman has two children and the older one is a girl, what is the chance the other is a boy?

i could be wrong (im drunk, its late, and being wrong is one of my most recurring habits) but i think you have your facts mixed. it should be 50% (or whatever the actual gender probability is). the sex of the first child has no effect on the second child. the first child has a 50% probability of being a girl, and ended up being a girl. the second has the exact same chance, 50%. the one after that will also have a 50/50 chance of either gender, and so on. statistically speaking, girl-girl-girl is just as likely as boy-boy-boy or girl-boy-girl.