Bible-beater pilots

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:47:12 -0600, "Montblack"
wrote:

Hey Homie .....or should I say Mormie g

g

I go to CJ's Church, too.

When you say *For the Homeland* ...you mean Minnesota too - not just the
Great Salt Lake basin, right?

I think he's from Washington State. So am I, for that matter.

BTW. Why don't we ever get the Marie Osmond kind of Mormons coming to
the door? You know - cute!!

They assign them all to the visitor's centers! You have to go to
*them*. Otherwise you get your lessons from the young men, y'know! :-)

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

"Brian Burger" wrote in message

Are there any secular groups that do this sort of humanitarian flying in
the developing world?

No. Just secular pilots who put up with the bull**** to get a job.

erf

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message

http://www.ffrf.org/tm.php?tm=dawkins.html

It's nonsense, that is, fallacy in the form of the Genuine but
Insignificant Cause. If it were true, then people espousing atheist
belief systems would consistently behave much better than they've
proven to have behaved.

Nope. That isn't a conclusion of the preceding material. And, where did
you get that reference from?

mo

rd

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message

The upshot of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is mathematical proof
that "any self-consistent axiomatic system powerful enough to describe
integer arithmetic will allow for propositions about integers that can
neither be proven nor disproven from the axioms." [from the Wikipedia
article on Goedel]

Euclidean geometry is more powerful than integer arithmetic.

Interesting POV. I gather that you're not a physicist. Empirical experiment
is still the gold standard. You haven't identified which parts of SR fall
falt under this type of confrontation. You haven't identified *any* current
physical models which whither under the light of empirical testing.

That is, logical systems powerful enough to be useful will contain
unprovable axioms. So the question, "Which [axiom or theorem] in
mathematics can't be proven or shown false that is the basis for all
other math?" is simply an utterly unanswerable question, given a
powerful enough system. Goedel proved it years ago. What *can* be said
is that "some axioms are unprovable, which doesn't mean they're false
or true."

Mathematics itself is today in a state alongside physics and most
natural science, of great uncertainty about the "Great Unknowables",
therefore, while depending on mathematical fundamentals will be
remarkably and consistently useful (can't compute a weight and balance
and then observe performance, or watch your climb rate go down as
altitude goes up, without noticing that), you just never know if your
system will stand up to new stuff.

That's the same as saying that you'll never know anything. About anything.
Your musings about science today being in a state of great unknowing ignores
most of recent scientific history. (When *everything* was unknown.)

Kind of like religion, that way, which works for most people. Until it
doesn't. Except for mine, of course. :-)

Nothing like religion at all. You haven't made any case for that statement.

le moo

"Robert Perkins" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:18:27 GMT, "mike regish"
wrote:

I can understand why you feel you need to capitalize the "G" on god, but
why
do you have to capitalize the "H" in "he?"

Because the grammatical rules of Standard American English

Now that is an oxymoron if ever there was

Andrew,

Why do most people not simply laugh these zealots off the stage?


Because they're the administration? gd&r

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Chris,

some times he even helps those who are too
stupid to help themselves


and that really messes up Darwinism ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:hPuvb.69669$Dw6.355695@attbi_s02...

Personally, I feel that we work too damned hard for our money to donate it
to organized criminals.

Are you referring to congresscritters, or preachers?

Hose****.

You're kidding right?

Well, first of all, you're mixing terms. "Hypothesis" is a term used
in scientific method, to propose something that is observed, but isn't
proven consistent. It doesn't exist in mathematics; proposals of
mathematic properties are called "theorems". But I set that aside;
this is casual conversation, after all.

I did not mix terms - I used the term that someone else used and asked for
elaboration. Not my confusion.


Bear with me here, everyone. I'm going to make a pretty good point or
two, in my opinion.

Can't wait...


Mathematical fundaments are composed of "Postulates", such as "A point
is defined as a location in space", "A line is defined as the
one-dimensional measure of distance between two points", and, "The
shortest distance between two points is a line".

Those are "postulates", specifically of Euclidean geometry. "Theorems"
arise from logical conclusions of the interactions of the postulates.
The ideas that triangles have certain properties, such as the sum of
their angles equalling pi radians, are "theorems".

Casually, these are sometimes called "laws", as in the "Law of
Cosines". Non-Euclidean geometries, necessary for doing things like
traversing the surface of a sphere (and none of us have *ever* done
that, oh, no!), does *not* have, as a postulate, that the shortest
distance between two points is a straight line; there are *no*
straight lines in spherical geometries.

Um, but the shortest distance between two points is STILL a stright line...
Unfortunately you can't travel through the earth.



For natural philosophers, people like physicists and mathemeticians,
the discovery (or rediscovery) of alternate but valid geometric
rulesets has resulted in several very useful discoveries, one of which
being Einstein's body of thought on relativity, flawed as we now know
it to be (but haven't come up with an all-encompassing replacement).

One other result of the re-examination of Euclidean thinking has been
the formulation of Theorems which deny the principal assumption of
great works like the _Principia Mathematica_, Goedel's Theorem
probably the most popular among them.

The upshot of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem is mathematical proof
that "any self-consistent axiomatic system powerful enough to describe
integer arithmetic will allow for propositions about integers that can
neither be proven nor disproven from the axioms." [from the Wikipedia
article on Goedel]

Euclidean geometry is more powerful than integer arithmetic.

That is, logical systems powerful enough to be useful will contain
unprovable axioms. So the question, "Which [axiom or theorem] in
mathematics can't be proven or shown false that is the basis for all
other math?" is simply an utterly unanswerable question, given a
powerful enough system. Goedel proved it years ago. What *can* be said
is that "some axioms are unprovable, which doesn't mean they're false
or true."

I asked for which basic tenet was unprovable. My point was that the
original poster of this math == religion thread was not making sense.
There is nothing similar about them. Goedel (and Turing's equivalent with
the halting problem) have nothing to do with this conversation. You still
haven't answered the question - you have just tried to make the whole bit
sound more complicated than it is. And I am sure we are all impressed with
the disussion or Euclid, Theorems, incompleteness, etc.



Mathematics itself is today in a state alongside physics and most
natural science, of great uncertainty about the "Great Unknowables",
therefore, while depending on mathematical fundamentals will be
remarkably and consistently useful (can't compute a weight and balance
and then observe performance, or watch your climb rate go down as
altitude goes up, without noticing that), you just never know if your
system will stand up to new stuff.

Kind of like religion, that way, which works for most people. Until it
doesn't. Except for mine, of course. :-)


I still don't see how that is anything like religion.

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Of course, if indeed I should end up standing in front of St. Peter or
Jesus on Judgement Day, it will be a major "Oops"-moment. ;-)

Nah - you have nothing to worry about... I have it on good authority that
the Jews were right anyway.