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

[WolfThomas]

How Einstein worked out why it happens is astonishing.

How? Wikipedia only mentions the paper he wrote.

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

Someone mentioned something I'd never heard of before, so I wiki-ed it, whats the problem with that, its not like I'm having anything but a passing interest in the topic.

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.

Yeah that's what I thought you meant.

 

[Legion]

My older brother once told me that you can't insure houses/homes because otherwise people would just burn them down to claim on it.

Needless to say he wouldn't believe me when I told him you could.

I often argue with my sister about stuff like this, but I've given up recently because when presented with the evidence she will just walk out of the room (And she's taking philoophy, a subject based around discussion. Hmm)

Most of the time I will never assert that I am one hundred percent correct though, because I don't really believe in facts and 'truth.' I have never been presented with something I couldn't find a clever way to argue against, not needing to resort to a 'I'm right and that's that' argument. Mostly I feel it needs to be pointed out that what was believed years ago is not necessarily fact, despite being supported by the majority of the evidence of the time. The same will happen to things we hold fundamental to our beliefs today.

Finally someone else on here who seems to get that.

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.

Don't start with all this again.

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.

I would say both sides are right to an extent. Giraffes with longer necks could reach the taller plants and as such were more likely to be well fed (less competition) as such they existed longer to pass on their genes. This meant that the strong trait was passed on until it became what all Giraffes were like. The reason it was a strong trait was because it allowed them more food, so in a manner of speaking it is why they grew them.

Obviously he was wrong about it being a choice though.

 

[dthvirus]

Some Grade 12 Calculus test I had. Teacher gave us a heat vs. time table. I plotted the points. The teacher asked if the graph was continuous. I look at the points. They're clearly a transformation of sin(x), but I have no function, only points of data.

I answer no. I get the question wrong. I demand an explanation from the teacher. She says, "Heat doesn't just jump around like that. The function must be continuous due to the behaviour of heat."

I told her there was no data between the points, so how could the graph be continuous if there are only points? Hell, you need a function for it to be continuous. I was the only one in the class that noticed this, so the teacher was a bit wary.

Long story short, she gave me marks for that question but didn't give me marks for another question that was directly related to the continuity of the graph. Yeah.

 

[evilstonermonkey]

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.

le sigh.

 

[Hazard09]

I'm not getting the monty hall problem. I don't see how the odds are still 1/3 after there are only 2 doors left.

 

[WolfThomas]

Some Grade 12 Calculus test I had. Teacher gave us a heat vs. time table. I plotted the points. The teacher asked if the graph was continuous. I look at the points. They're clearly a transformation of sin(x), but I have no function, only points of data.

I answer no. I get the question wrong. I demand an explanation from the teacher. She says, "Heat doesn't just jump around like that. The function must be continuous due to the behaviour of heat."

I told her there was no data between the points, so how could the graph be continuous if there are only points? Hell, you need a function for it to be continuous. I was the only one in the class that noticed this, so the teacher was a bit wary.

Long story short, she gave me marks for that question but didn't give me marks for another question that was directly related to the continuity of the graph. Yeah.

Well what she said makes sense, heat doesn't just change from 35 to say 40 instantly it warms being every temperature between those points, even just for a moment.

But it sounds like the graph was quite misleading and what you put is probably be what I would have answered back then.

I'm not getting the monty hall problem. I don't see how the odds are still 1/3 after there are only 2 doors left.

The two events are connected, it's not a case of 1/3 turning into 1/2. I've tried to show it at least twice in earlier posts, so I'm going to show via a different method.:

Initial pick is Car chance = 1/3

Remaining door 1 Goat chance = 1/2 -1/3 * 1/2= 1/6
Remaining door 2 Goat chance = 1/2 -1/3 * 1/2= 1/6


Initial pick is goat chance = 2/3

Remaining door 1 Goat chance = 1/2 -2/3 * 1/2= 2/6 or 1/3
Remaining door 2 Car chance = 1/2 -2/3 * 1/2= 2/6 or 1/3 This would be your chance of winning the car if you switched and a goat door wasn't eliminated

But a goat is eliminated:

Initial pick is Car chance =1/3

Remaining door 1 (or 2 in this stage it doesn't matter) Goat chance = 1/1 - 1/3 * 1 = 1/3
Remaining door 2 Goat

Initial pick is goat chance = 2/3

Remaining door 1 Car chance = 1/1 - 2/3 * 1 = 2/3This is now the chance of winning the car if you switch
Remaining door 2 Goat


(I had a wicked tree diagram made in the post box, but it didn't translate well in the preview)

 

[Eat Uranium]

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.

I would say both sides are right to an extent. Giraffes with longer necks could reach the taller plants and as such were more likely to be well fed (less competition) as such they existed longer to pass on their genes. This meant that the strong trait was passed on until it became what all Giraffes were like. The reason it was a strong trait was because it allowed them more food, so in a manner of speaking it is why they grew them.

Obviously he was wrong about it being a choice though.

Afaik, the length of giraffe necks is not really to do with feeding. Its because the males use them to fight over females, and the male with the bigger neck is more likely to win.

 

[JohnDoey]

sigh human are so stupid

 

[JohnDoey]

sigh human are so stupid

This is a REAL argument I had with someone. I swear to your God that I wish I was lying:

(I live on the North-East Coast of the U.S.A)

Girl: "The Moon is closer to us than Florida"
Me: "No it isn't"
Girl: "Yes it is! I can see the Moon, it's there, and I cannot see Florida, so it's simple logic that the Moon is closer."
Me in the middle of face-palming: "The Moon is thousands of miles away, Florida is in our country, We can drive to Florida in a few hours or one day at the most. It took a spaceship with rocket propulsion 3 days, and trust me, those rockets are going a lot faster than 65 MPH."
Girl: "Whatever, you're full of shit."

EDIT: Another argument I just remembered.

Guy : "Where is the other side of the map?"
Me : "The map is flat, there is no other side."
Guy : "You're joking? right? The world is a sphere, any idiot knows that. So if the map is one side, where is the other side?"

 

[GundamSentinel]

I'm 100% correct that the entire universe (and probably more than that) is nothing more than cause and effect running rampant. Or is that too close to religion?

 

[botobeno]

Something i feel i'm right about but have been unable to make other people understand, is the fact that forum topics like this are a bad place to discuss stuff.

A topic is linear, the discussion is not. It usually branches out into multiple subjects. Replies are piling up, responding to earlier things that are already buried under other replies. It quickly turns into chaos. Things start getting repeated and repeated. It's highly ineffective. Also, when there are many people involved, the responses pile up very fast. In the time you spend making your reply, others already responded making yours seem out of place and often obsolete. If you log out and come back the next day, the topic has moved on, forcing you to either abandon the issue or pull it back up from behind the ten, twenty or more replies in between now and when the issue was last adressed.

I'll demonstrate this using this topic: (Limiting myself to three examples)
"This thread is about arguments in which you've been 100% correct on an issue and yet no one can understand that you are right." At best, about 25% of the replies are really about this.

The door-car-goat-goat was explained at least four times, the specific explanations were themselves quoted several times. People still come in, say they dont understand the door-goat-goat-car, prompting another reply that gives the same explanation. I estimate it's been explained about ten times at least.

The people-didnt-know-the-earth-was-round-because-they-had-no-data-about-it was disproven three times and then someone still quoted it as being correct.

 

[Hazard09]

I'm not getting the monty hall problem. I don't see how the odds are still 1/3 after there are only 2 doors left.

The two events are connected, it's not a case of 1/3 turning into 1/2. I've tried to show it at least twice in earlier posts, so I'm going to show via a different method.:

Initial pick is Car chance = 1/3

Remaining door 1 Goat chance = 1/2 -1/3 * 1/2= 1/6
Remaining door 2 Goat chance = 1/2 -1/3 * 1/2= 1/6


Initial pick is goat chance = 2/3

Remaining door 1 Goat chance = 1/2 -2/3 * 1/2= 2/6 or 1/3
Remaining door 2 Car chance = 1/2 -2/3 * 1/2= 2/6 or 1/3 This would be your chance of winning the car if you switched and a goat door wasn't eliminated

But a goat is eliminated:

Initial pick is Car chance =1/3

Remaining door 1 (or 2 in this stage it doesn't matter) Goat chance = 1/1 - 1/3 * 1 = 1/3
Remaining door 2 Goat

Initial pick is goat chance = 2/3

Remaining door 1 Car chance = 1/1 - 2/3 * 1 = 2/3This is now the chance of winning the car if you switch
Remaining door 2 Goat


(I had a wicked tree diagram made in the post box, but it didn't translate well in the preview)[/quote]

Can you explain this without hard to understand mathematics?

 

[WolfThomas]

Can you explain this without hard to understand mathematics?

Not really but if you want to witness it in action, try it with a friend and three playing cards (two black, one red), make sure you know which ones which face down. Have him pick one and then flip up another which you know is black, then ask him if he wants to swap.

Record how often he gets the red when swapping, how many times without. You should find he wins more with swapping.

 

[WolfThomas]

Shameless bump, but found a relevant cartoon (which is exactly the opposite of what this was about)

 

[funguy2121]

snip

Nothing is wrong with you. Forgive me and my big nose...

 

[Beldaros]

In all fairness there is very little in this world that can be proven 100% very few things, apart from simple things like Jim Carey was Truman, fact (no one has ever disagreed with me on this, just an example). It's difficult to say anything is 100% right. everything can be disproven, nothing can be proven.

 

[Datalord]

(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.

Other than references to the books of the prophets, where does it say that Jesus took the old testament literally?

While God INSPIRED the bible, it was still written by flawed humans, compiled by flawed humans, and translated by flawed humans, most of the stories were diverging stories passed down by word of mouth during the babylonian exile, so when two different stories spoke of the same event, translators and editors included both, hence two creation stories and two stories of Daniel as a boy meeting king Saul

How does not believing in God mean that a scientist will set out to disprove his existence? (btw, you cannot prove or disprove God, that's why you need FAITH), most scientists do research completely unrelated to religion, such as growing seedless watermelons or improving the durability of synthetic cloth.

 

[ben---neb]

(SNIP

SNAP.

Other than references to the books of the prophets, where does it say that Jesus took the old testament literally?

While God INSPIRED the bible, it was still written by flawed humans, compiled by flawed humans, and translated by flawed humans, most of the stories were diverging stories passed down by word of mouth during the babylonian exile, so when two different stories spoke of the same event, translators and editors included both, hence two creation stories and two stories of Daniel as a boy meeting king Saul

How does not believing in God mean that a scientist will set out to disprove his existence? (btw, you cannot prove or disprove God, that's why you need FAITH), most scientists do research completely unrelated to religion, such as growing seedless watermelons or improving the durability of synthetic cloth.

Let's apply some logic to this. God wants to reveal himself to the world. He decided to do so through a book called the Bible. He inspires humans to write it over a period of 1200 years. Now, do you think he would let them write wrong things? Do you really think that God won't make sure that when it was written, complied and translated that it was done perfectly? With God behind the writing of the Bible how could it be anything other than perfect? You insult the power of God by suggesting that God would let mistakes happen. Repetition is just an example of repetition. Presumely the events were important enough to be recorded in the Bible twice. A lot of the Old Testement was written before the Exile (because during the Exile Prophets read from it) and time means nothing to God anyway.

Next, I have nothing against science, it's great, life is much better thanks to the advancement of knowledge. Where I have a problem is where scientists seek to disprove/contradict God's word. That is over stepping the mark. Science only works to the point where it disagrees with the Bible then it has gone too far and is wrong.

In addition if a scientist is not a Christian then he/she is baised against belieiveing in God, no, more than that the scientist hates God and wants nothing to do with God. Therefore they look for 'evidence' against God and they find it because they want to find it.

 

[irrelevantnugget]

Therefore they look for 'evidence' against God and they find it because they want to find it.

Oh, the irony.

Scientists 'invent' things like physics?
You're trying to bring arguments to convince us that God exists.
Your argument however, is: 'Because he wrote the bible, indirectly'.
Why does God exist? 'Because everything the bible says is true'.
Why is the bible true? 'Because God made it'.
Why did he make it? 'Because God wanted to'.
Why did he want to make it? 'Because he is God and he wanted to'.
Why is he God? 'Dude, read the Bible, it's what he wrote so it must be true'.

The conclusion leads back to one of the premises, there is no connection at all to a real source. Hence you're stuck in an internal logical construction that cannot be false in its own universe, but it can never be proven properly outside of it.
Your religion may make sense to itself, but for scientists, who tend to be more sceptical, it simply isn't enough; so they'd rather try to explain things without having to fall back on 'because x said so' reasoning.

I'm a nihilist, but if God's existence (and powers) have been proven, I've no choice but to believe in him: his existence has been proven. But I'm not one to just boldly believe in stories and supernatural phenomena that have happened ages ago, because a book from that time says so.

 

[lenin_117]

Actually, at the time Flat Earth was a scientifically valid idea. There was no data to suggest otherwise.

As the other person already pointed out, the Greeks already knew it was round (and they even had a a quite good estimate of the size.)

The data that shows it's round is how a ship appears at the horizon. First you see the top of the mast, then the sail appears, then the hull. If the earth was flat, you would see the entire ship as a tiny dot that gradually becomes larger.

That's how it was told to me. I never did the research to confirm it though. Never watched a ship appear at the horizon either. Still, i'm quite sure it's true.

Edit: Columbus going west says nothing about the earth being round or not, what it does say is that there were at least some people who thought it was round at the time.

Well then obviously that isnt the time period I was referring to. If I say that at the time they did not have evidence that the world was round, then I most certainly am not referring to the time period after they have evidence that the world was round. duh.