kirbybeam
-
Posts
177 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by kirbybeam
-
-
I can't be bothered any more, topics like this just sadden me, to see what the world is coming to at the hands of theists with blinkers on.
I am a theist...
Yes it is. Even these little viruses are life forms, and they were put on Earth for a purpose. Most likely to keep down population and reduce food consumption. Sorry if it offends you to think of humans as numbers.
lmao, they were put here on a purpose? :roll:
Um... have you ever even studied virology? Viruses are unstable little creatures, which is what makes them so crazy. And if it's so intelligently design, how come we can stop them? Are we better than God in that case?
There's a place for everything and everything is in it's place. At least according to Intelligent Design.
From what part of IDiocy do you draw that conclusion, and what is the evidence for it, and what does it predict?
And just because you dont agree with a theory does not mean you can go around making fun of it (ie IDiocy). We are not flaming Evolutionism, please return the favor.
Intelligent Design is NOT a theory. Period. It is a claim, it holds no weight.
Wha? Who said only applying it when it is in my favour?By "your", I meant supporters of Intelligent Design. And that's exactly what Intelligent Design does, it blindly ignores evidence to its demise.
Well, I would say with an Intelligent Being overseeing evolution, it's not really random chance anymore, is it? If I cook a meal, no one is going to say, "Wow! Crazy how those ingredients randomly came together and ended up in an oven like that!", are they? (but again this is origin talk)Anthropic principle. Have you heard of it? It knocks down your claim. No matter what the condition of the universe, there are going to be people saying "wow, there is hardly any chance of the universe being the way it is now!"
I think a quote from Douglas Adams is most apropriate:
It's rather like a puddle waking up one morningÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢â∠-
1. In science you would know, there are unknowns. When observations/conclusions/and theories are made about those unknowns, we cannot quickly assume that they are right because they appear right. In science, there are some areas where there is not a right and wrong answer only because not enough is known to really make a definite conclusion.
But the problem is, IDiocy claims that God IS the definite conclusion and that any evidence otherwise is wrong. And it's been ove 120 years, I think that's more than enough time for the Scientific Theory of Evolution to have ample evidence for it.
2. Almost how evolution can't be tested?
Is this a joke? Evolution CAN be tested! Just look at vestigial organs, look at adaptation, natural selection, the DNA molecule, bone structure, taxonomy, Drosophila sp., so many tests for evolution that were passed!
1. Just because the origin of the idea can from a place where you must believe in the bible, does not mean that this is the same for all other cases. The rules of the source does not translate into the laws of all others.
In any case, I believe the Bible is corrupted, so can you give me non-biblical support for Intelligent Design? And I don't want to hear crickets.
2. While I wouldn't state that there "arn't any" non-Christians that believe in ID, the majority of ID believers are Christian. Also, ID is most relavent to Christianity, its almost apologetics in a way. Then again, I haven't seen very many non-Christian apologetical arguements. Im not saying they arn't out there, just I haven't come across any.
Um... then start coming across them. I'm have yet to see non-biblical evidence for IDiocy.
3. So when do life forms "become too complex" in your views? It doesn't matter as its only subjective truth.. that is truth pending upon your views and not on fact. Saying that life forms "arn't too complex" has no relavency, as it's impossible to really state when they have become too complex. After carefully examining the process of dna replication and the inter-cellular motor required to move the flagellum in many unicellular organisms, I have come to that conclusion. Obviously you have not.
I'm being honest, are you fibbing? Because you act as if this has never been responded to by non-IDiots. Well guess what, DNA replication is a simple principle, COPY YOURSELF! Is it that hard to perceive its evolution? Start with basic prions that can self-replicate. Then, maybe a few DNTPs and some polymerase got together... Voila! Maybe 10 bps!
"too complex" is nonsense ambiguity that is used as a smokescreen:
Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.
Source:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.
Response:
1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
* deletion of parts
* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* change of function
* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* gradual modification of parts
All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).
Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation (Mel̮̩̉̉ndez-Hevia et al. 1996).
2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.
4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
* The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
* The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
* In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
* The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.
Links:
TalkOrigins Archive. n.d. Irreducible complexity and Michael Behe. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
References:
1. Aharoni, A., L. Gaidukov, O. Khersonsky, S. McQ. Gould, C. Roodveldt and D. S. Tawfik. 2004. The 'evolvability' of promiscuous protein functions. Nature Genetics [Epub Nov. 28 ahead of print]
2. Dujon, B. et al. 2004. Genome evolution in yeasts. Nature 430: 35-44.
3. Hooper, S. D. and O. G. Berg. 2003. On the nature of gene innovation: Duplication patterns in microbial genomes. Molecular Biololgy and Evolution 20(6): 945-954.
4. Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery. 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
5. Mel̮̩̉̉ndez-Hevia, Enrique, Thomas G. Waddell and Marta Cascante. 1996. The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43(3): 293-303.
6. Muller, Hermann J. 1918. Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors. Genetics 3: 422-499. http://www.genetics.org/content/vol3/issue5/index.shtml
7. Muller, H. J. 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14: 261-280.
8. Pennisi, Elizabeth. 2001. Genome duplications: The stuff of evolution? Science 294: 2458-2460.
9. Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html
Further Reading:
Gray, Terry M.. 1999. Complexity--yes! Irreducible--maybe! Unexplainable--no! A creationist criticism of irreducible complexity. http://tallship.chm.colostate.edu/evolu ... compl.html
Lindsay, Don. 1996. Review: "Darwin's black box, the biochemical challenge to evolution" by Michael Behe. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/behe.html
Miller, K. 1999. Finding Darwin's God. Harper-Collins, chap. 5.
Shanks, N. and K. H. Joplin. 1999. Redundant complexity: A analysis of intelligent design in biochemistry. Philosophy of Science 66: 268-298. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologet ... oplin.html
Ussery, David. 1999. (see above)
Get it now? And here's to your flagellum argument:
Bacterial flagella and eukaryotic cilia are irreducibly complex, Since nonfunctional intermediates cannot be preserved by natural selection, these systems can only be explained by intelligent design.
Source:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, pp. 59-73.
Response:
1. This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.
One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):
1. A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.
2. The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).
3. The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).
4. An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.
5. The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.
6. Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.
The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.
2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).
Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).
3. Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and cilia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved separately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.
Links:
Matzke, N. J. 2003. Evolution in (brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellu ... round.html or http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html
There you go, beautifully explained by talkorigins.
5. Im not God and I can't state why he did or didn't create certain organisms. When considering pathogens, a few have said that its God's way of testing mankind, or his way of punishing certain people, or his way of making sure certain species don't overbreed... I really can't say.
God has no place in science. Science deals with ONLY the natural. God is supernatural.
-
I'm 16, and interestingly enough, tonight is going to be my FIRST time ever shaving. 8)
-
LOL perhaps i should of said that diffrent. I am extreamly for evolution, and try and do everythign scientificly. But what im saying is, to satisfy both sides, dont teach anything, let them find out for themselves. Or atlest just say, here this is the big bang and evolutionary theory, and here is ID. Nothing more.
I disagree. Even mentioning IDiocy in a science class gives it more credibility than it deserves.
If you had read all of my posts I agreed with you, intelligent design is not science. I believe it has its' place in philosophy class.
In any case, it is bad philosophy as well; arbitrarily applying epistemology only when it is in your favor is questionable.
That's a false anology. If evolution was as set as pure math then maybe, but no. There are no countertheories to simple addition. And even if it weren't a false analogy, again, no one is forcing anyone, it's just suggested. No one is telling you to accept anything.
The thing is, I'm paying the taxes that give money to those teachers that teach IDiocy. I sure as hell don't want them teaching pseudoscience with my tax dollars thank you very much.
I guess it boils down to your definition of intelligent design. My personal belief is evolution at the hands of an intelligent designer to guide the incredibly low-chance phenomena that has happened. I believe there is a personal cause and scientific cause behind the existence of life.
lol... if that low chance didn't happen we wouldn't be here to see it... how could it be any other way? :roll:
Let's cut out the ad hominem. Which is a fallacy.
That's not an ad hominem, because it isn't the basis for my claims against IDiocy.
And reguarding the second part of your post, when I say accepted by the scientific community, that means that scientists accept it in the same way they do the theory of gravity, or cell theory, or the relativity theory. The point of science class is to teach mainstream scientific thought.
Who cares if its not a science!!! Just at least tell the kids about it. Like Lion_heart said: just tell them about everything and let them figure out for themselves.
And I never said that its true just because a lot of people belive in it. But when there are as many people that belive in creation as there are then you could at least mention it as a possibility I really cant see where that would hurt anybody.
(ok and maybe "origin" wasnt the best choice of words, lets say "how life came to be today")
It shouldn't be mentioned because it gives it false credibilty and leverage.
I really don't see what the big deal is. True I believe in ID but, they are not trying to through evolution out of the picture by presenting it, only offering a different opinion. I personally wouldn't like it if evolution wasn't taught... even though I don't particularly agree with it. Its kind of how government class is suppost to be. A view point from one political party is presented, and another, opposing view point is presented. The teacher isn't saying this is wrong and this is right, but only presenting both sides.
But this isn't politics. In science, there IS a right answer, and a wrong answer. Either Newton's theory of gravity could correcly predict Mercury's orbital deviation or it couldn't. Either the Michaelson-Morley experiment proved the theory of ether or it didn't. Evolution can be disproved thus by pointing out a chimaera, or a population which is not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium but still does not change.
Intelligent Design CANNOT be disproven, it does not belong in the science class, it should not even be mentioned as "an opposing theory".
ID is not rewrapped Chrisianity, all it states it that the universe and life forms in it are so complex, that it is only rational to conclude that a higher being created it. Higher being does not necessarily translate into a Christian god.Right... it doesn't necessarily point to the Christian god... except that to join the Discovery Institute (where the idea of IDiocy came from), you must be a Bible believer. Ever notice that there aren't any non-Christians that promote IDiocy? And life forms are NOT too complex, lmao. And, Intelligent Design fails to explain the nature of the creator, who created the creator, ad inifinitum? It doesn't predict anything, it is not science, how many times do I have to reiterate this?
Intelligent Design... yeah, it's so brilliant that virus and so many other pathogens were perfectly created for us huh? :roll:
If your interested, heres some articles from a creationist/id perspective on evolutionary ones in modern day science *note: while i have read most of them, i have not read all of them so i can't exactly answer for all of them Confused : http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... =type&ID=8
eh, hardly objective.
I like http://www.talkorigins.org/ much better.
-
Now, if you do have a problem with teaching the origin of life (nothing to do with Evolution), then bring it about (in a new thread of course).
And what I'm trying to say is, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution because all self-replicating proto-organisms at the time were in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and thus no evolution was occuring.
-
Of course it isnt a science, but that doesnt mean the kids cant at least be told there is other ideas out there besides evolution. Just letting the kids know a very breif explination of intelligent design isnt going to hurt anyone. The teacher doesnt have to open up a Bible and start reading, but just at least mention that there are other belifs about the origin of life.
Evolution isn't about the origin of life. Look at the name, it is called evolution, which is change over time. Take a human baby for example. Analogous to the Scientific Theory of Evolution would be the observations of the growth of the baby. The baby grows into a child, then an adolescent, and finally an adult. This says nothing about where the baby came from, and, in the same way, the Scientific Theory of Evolution does not deal with how life started.
And like I said, IDiocy is not science, it does not belong in a science class, it should not even talked about in a science class besides a mention that it is bad science and is not accepted nor endorsed by the scientific community.
1984[/i] :P )Just people lots of people believe something doesn't make it true; that's an argumentum ad populum (appeal to popularity; a fallacy).
-
Erm... i still dont get why this is going.... why not just, not teach any of this stuff. Untill we acutly find out, just let kids think what they want.
The Scientific Theory of Evolution is the core of Biology. It has been sorted out, it's just that some people don't like it because it disagrees with what they believe in. The difference is, the people who are advancing the theory didn't say "This is the theory, and here is the evidence for it." No, they started with the evidence and then came up with the theory to explain it. The people on the other side, however, say "I believe x, y, z, and if anything says otherwise, it is wrong." That second line of reasoning is not scientific; it is nothing more than a rejection of unfavorable truth.
And the schism isn't really even balanced. 99.9% of the scientific community accepts the scientific theory of evolution. The opposition often tries to puff itself up by showing itself as more widely accepted than in reality. The bottom line is, anti-evolution is hype.
This is different from, say, the Special Theory of Relativity versus the neo-ether physics, which both sides have scientific arguments.
-
:? The atomic bomb... that gave something the whole world to fear...
I'd be a little more scared if the built the Dr. Device from the Ender's Game books :shock:
The whaty?
(srry mods if my posts are odd, and make no sense, and are realy really anoying, but im super hyper! Go tea!)
A weapon that disassembles molecules and builds on other molecules destroyed... so the more concentrated it is the bigger the chain reaction and the more isolated the target is the shorter it will be
Um... this is a thread about history's inventions, not futuristic ones. :roll:
-
And most of those generally don't have any counter theories unlike ID and Darwinism and all that stuff
um... Intelligent Design is not a theory, it does not predict anything. Neither does creationism predict anything. That's what a theory does, it predicts. And... how the hell can you teach "Intelligent Design"? There is no evidence for intelligent design, period. And I'm not calling it "intelligent design" anymore, I'm calling it IDiocy, because that's all it is. I don't want the supernatural in a science class, science deals ONLY with the natural.
-
Alright then, how about the Pythagorean Theorem? Or the irrationality of Pi? Or any number of mathematical theories that are presented in a Math class?
* Algebraic K-theory
* Approximation theory
* Automata theory
* Braid theory
* Brill-Noether theory
* Catastrophe theory
* Category theory
* Character theory
* Choquet theory
* Class field theory
* Coding theory
* Cohomology theory
* Computation theory
* Deformation theory
* Dimension theory
* Distribution theory
* Field theory
* Elimination theory
* Extremal graph theory
* Galois theory
* Game theory
* Graph theory
* Grothendieck's Galois theory
* Group theory
* Hodge theory
* Homology theory
* Homotopy theory
* Information theory
* Invariant theory
* K-theory
* Knot theory
* L-theory
* Local class field theory
* M-theory
* Matrix theory
* Measure theory
* Model theory
* Morse theory
* Module theory
* Network theory
* Nevanlinna theory
* Number theory
* Obstruction theory
* Operator theory
* Percolation theory
* Perturbation theory
* Probability theory
* Proof theory
* Quantum theory
* Queue theory
* Recursion theory
* Representation theory
* Ring theory
* Scheme theory
* Set theory
* Sheaf theory
* Singularity theory
* Spectral theory
* String theory
* Surgery theory
* Theory of equations
* Topos theory
* Transcendence theory
* Twistor theory
What should be taught as an alternative to those... :roll:
-
No, just teach it as an alternative. Funny how when it's not something you believe, it's FORCING them.
"Intelligent Design" is not science; it should not be taught in a science class, even as an "alternative". Teaching "Intellegent Design" is the equivalent of telling kids in sex ed that babies come from storks.
And lol at forcing kids... So I guess in math we should accept answers besides 2 + 2 = 4 because some kids don't believe in it? :roll:
-
I would have to say the invention of the saddle has to be a very important one.
-
//I fixed up the Averages.java a bit! I had to peek at chapter 6 while my
//teacher wasn't looking... later on she caught me and I got in trouble :roll:
//So... I am using arrays now... so much better!
//Now, up to 50 numbers can be entered...
import cs1.Keyboard;
public class Averages
{
public static void findAverage()
{
double sum = 0, mean, median, mode;
int numbers;
final int NUMBERS_LIMIT = 50;
String order;
String stringArray[] = new String[NUMBERS_LIMIT + 1];
double doubleArray[] = new double[NUMBERS_LIMIT + 1];
stringArray[0] = null;
stringArray[1] = "first";
stringArray[2] = "second";
stringArray[3] = "third";
stringArray[4] = "fourth";
stringArray[5] = "fifth";
stringArray[6] = "sixth";
stringArray[7] = "seventh";
stringArray[8] = "eighth";
stringArray[9] = "ninth";
stringArray[10] = "tenth";
stringArray[11] = "eleventh";
stringArray[12] = "twelfth";
stringArray[13] = "thirteenth";
stringArray[14] = "fourteenth";
stringArray[15] = "fifteenth";
stringArray[16] = "sixteenth";
stringArray[17] = "seventeenth";
stringArray[18] = "eighteenth";
stringArray[19] = "nineteenth";
stringArray[20] = "twentieth";
stringArray[21] = "twenty-" + stringArray[1];
stringArray[22] = "twenty-" + stringArray[2];
stringArray[23] = "twenty-" + stringArray[3];
stringArray[24] = "twenty-" + stringArray[4];
stringArray[25] = "twenty-" + stringArray[5];
stringArray[26] = "twenty-" + stringArray[6];
stringArray[27] = "twenty-" + stringArray[7];
stringArray[28] = "twenty-" + stringArray[8];
stringArray[29] = "twenty-" + stringArray[9];
stringArray[30] = "thirtieth";
stringArray[31] = "thirty-" + stringArray[1];
stringArray[32] = "thirty-" + stringArray[2];
stringArray[33] = "thirty-" + stringArray[3];
stringArray[34] = "thirty-" + stringArray[4];
stringArray[35] = "thirty-" + stringArray[5];
stringArray[36] = "thirty-" + stringArray[6];
stringArray[37] = "thirty-" + stringArray[7];
stringArray[38] = "thirty-" + stringArray[8];
stringArray[39] = "thirty-" + stringArray[9];
stringArray[40] = "fortieth";
stringArray[41] = "forty-" + stringArray[1];
stringArray[42] = "forty-" + stringArray[2];
stringArray[43] = "forty-" + stringArray[3];
stringArray[44] = "forty-" + stringArray[4];
stringArray[45] = "forty-" + stringArray[5];
stringArray[46] = "forty-" + stringArray[6];
stringArray[47] = "forty-" + stringArray[7];
stringArray[48] = "forty-" + stringArray[8];
stringArray[49] = "forty-" + stringArray[9];
stringArray[50] = "fiftieth";
System.out.println("You have selected Averages.");
System.out.println();
System.out.print("Enter the number of numbers you wish to enter (maximum is " + NUMBERS_LIMIT + "): ");
numbers = Keyboard.readInt();
while (numbers > NUMBERS_LIMIT || numbers < 1)
{
System.out.print ("Invalid number entered! Try again: ");
numbers = Keyboard.readInt();
}
System.out.println();
for (int i = 1; i <= numbers; i++)
{
System.out.print("Enter the " + stringArray + " number: ");
doubleArray = Keyboard.readDouble();
sum += doubleArray;
}
System.out.println("The sum is: " + sum);
mean = sum / numbers;
System.out.println("The mean is: " + mean);
System.out.println();
}
}
//Now I need to implement the median and the mode... I have no idea
// how to do that yet.
-
I fail to see how a verse saying that anything is possible with God makes Christianity pointless. My point about that verse explaining away anything was that (if you read between the lines), it is often taken out of context. *With God*, anything is possible. If you're doing something contrary to God's character, you're hardly with God anymore, are you? It has to be something in God's will for it to be possible, as if you're not in God's will, you're not "with God".
And I would argue that it is out of God's character to be contradictory, and as I believe, someone who will physically conquer (in your opinion) Assyria can not do so peacefully, it's a contradiction. God wouldn't make 2 = 3, and he wouldn't make peace not peace. But this is all my opinion, and can be ignored as a formal argument.
Who's to say what God's character is? If God can order Moses and his army to pillage, kill, and rape whole towns, what puts this out of line? And yes, it is possible to peacefully conquer a place. With God it is.
Yes but this military commander you speak of will conquer the Assyrians.Wait... I'm reading, and now I don't know what military commander you are even talking about. Looking at the verse, I see nothing about conquering Assyrians by a military commander, but rather, by "seven shepherds and eight princes of men". It states that the Assyrians will invade their land, and he (the Messiah) will save the people from the Assyrians. Jesus never did that, so he can't be the Messiah.
This verse really makes it seem like the military commander is always in existence. His origin *is* *from* old, *from* days of yore. Those are words usually used to speak in present or past tense. What do you make fo that verse? You explained away the presence of the word eternity, but left the basis of my argument (sort of a straw man).All it says is that he will have old origins... nothing about "eternal" or "timeless".
This really sounds like a concluding statement. If there were a colon or semi colon (see v.3) after the word 'peace' instead of a period, I would believe the rest of the text selection to be talking about the same person, but it really seems to be concluding a thought, and then moving on.If it was concluding a thought, why is it in the same verse? That's the part that shoots your argument down. The next sentence states "Should the Assyrians..." and it goes on to talk about what will happen when the Assyrians invade their land.
4. And this shall be peace. Should Assyria come into our land, and should they tread upon our palaces, we will appoint over them seven shepherds and eight princes of men.5. And they shall break the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its gates; and he shall save [us] from Assyria, who comes into our land, and who treads in our border.
See that "he"? That's talking about the same previous he. This is the Bible we are talking about, not some lame school essay written by a kid that throws random pronouns everywhere. The "he" is obviously referring to the previous time the word "he" is used (the one that becomes great to the ends of the world).
-
You need to learn more tricks :P
That entrie program can be easily compressed down into a single class.
And instead of using 'while' loops everywhere, just use switch statements (specially for the menu) and you could probably do to use a list for the 'mean / average / etc' thing instead of having 30 or so variables :-?
I'd rewrite some parts but since I don't have the sdk and such installed atm I can't do it :P
It's not bad but you tend to take the long way to do a lot of things.
And is that cs1.Keyboard import universal? I haven't seen it before in my life and I've been coding Java stuff for years :-?
I've taken Computer Science 1 for just three months now at school. And my class is filled with idiots, so we are moving along pretty slowly... Hell, some kids in my class can't even get the HelloWorld program running yet :roll:
So yeah, if I take the long way of things, it's because I simply haven't learned the shortcuts (and believe me, I'm using things in this program that my class won't cover until like next month)
Hmm, I would use a switch statement, but I am not sure if that will let me return to the previous functions of my calculator. I still don't know enough about it to utilize it.
And yeah, I realize that having like 30 variables for that averages program was taking it a little too far, but the thing is, that's the way that I can do it from what I have learned thus far. And I even wrote a program called "IfStatements.java" that I used to get all those if statements printed out by the computer and then copying and pasting them instead of typing each one by hand. And the cs1.Keyboard import is basicly like the scanner class except better. It was written by Lewis and Loftus, who are the authors of the computer science book my class is using. It's really useful, especially since my school's computers don't have the scanner class.
-
Just because people claim not to see ghosts doesn't mean they aren't real.just because people claim to see ghosts doesn't mean they are real. I've seen Santa Claus and the Easter bunny... :roll:Thus, there is no rational reason to believe in ghosts. I rest my case.
-
I'd argue he's at war with his people, whom he oppresses, which can hardly be called peace. And he has been at war with the US at times. Anyhow, that's not really too relevant to the discussion, but I do think a military commander will at least *in general* not come in peace.
Castro has NEVER declared war on anyone period. The only time he even used his military outside of Cuba was when Cuban troops were sent to Marxist Ethiopia to assist Ethiopian forces in the Ogaden War with Somalia in 1977. That hardly counts as being at war with any nation, and Cuba has never been in a state of war while Castro has been in power.
Does it even matter "in general"? We are talking about the Moshiach here, almost certainly not an "in general" type of person which is to be expected.
Thank you very much for answering the questions, however is there a link for the hadith in arabic if possible ?I'm sorry, I don't have that link. To be honest, I don't really read Hadith. I mostly read the Noble Qur'an. You should ask on an Islamic Forum if you want a better answer.
-
I used the NASB, which is commonly known (amongst Bible readers) to have aimed more at accuracy than the NIV. Eternal ~ timeless... I was just reiterating it.
Yes, and I'm calling in to question the accuracy of the Bible which you use. Do you know the Hebrew word for eternal (or timeless)? In any case, for the Old Testament, I use the Judaica Press Complete Tanach. The Old Testament was written FOR Jews BY Jews, so what better source as to its meaning than Jews themselves?
1. And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore.
2. Therefore, He shall deliver them until the time a woman in confinement gives birth. And the rest of his brothers shall return upon the children of Israel.
3. And he shall stand and lead with the might of the Lord, with the pride of the Lord, his God: and they shall return, for now he shall become great to the ends of the earth.
4. And this shall be peace. Should Assyria come into our land, and should they tread upon our palaces, we will appoint over them seven shepherds and eight princes of men.
5. And they shall break the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its gates; and he shall save [us] from Assyria, who comes into our land, and who treads in our border.
6. And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples-like dew sent by the Lord, like torrents of rain upon vegatation that does not hope for any man and does not wait for the sons of men.
7. And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of many peoples-like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, if it passes through, treads down and tears in pieces, and no one [can] save anything.
[taken from: http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16191]
Not eternal. I'll readily admit that I do not speak Hebrew. But I think I'll trust the Judaica Press Complete Tanach over the NASB for the Old Testament anyday. Now, if this was the New Testament, I could take this further since I know a little Greek (The Greek word for eternal is ÃÆýÃâñÃÆýÃâùÃÆÃ
-
Um... I made this calculator because the windows one sucks. Like I said, my calculator can do so much more and faster.
bjbj was actually supporting you, I think :)
I don't have the time to read it all at the moment, but I do have one nit:
String foo = new String("bar-" + someVariable);
Why are you using a string constructor here? You've already set the variable type, isn't java okay with:
String foo = "bar-" + someVariable;
?
Yeah, it is. But I feel more confortable with the String constructor because it helps my Strings stand out when for other variables I only use a quick assignment statement.
Also, I'm not a native English speaker and have enjoyed my Maths education in Dutch. I'm not familiar with "Cramer's rule", but is your program correct in reporting NaN for 3 out of the 4 result values? :)You could maybe use isNaN to check for it, and display something else instead (maybe that there are no results with these parameters or something).
Oh, that's fine, I was just lazy. See, the reason it came out NaN is because the constants I put in make it so that the solution set for all three variables is all real numbers. Here's a real example of it:
Cramer's Rule is to solve 3 equations with 3 variables:
2x + 3y - 2z = 4
3x - 2y + 2z = 16
-x - 12y + 8z = 5
I'll run this, and using Cramer's Rule I can find out all three variables:
(^_^)WELCOME TO KIRBY'S CALCULATOR PROGRAM!!!(^_^)
What would you like to do now?
Type 1 for Decimal Binary Operations
Type 2 for Fractional Binary Operations
Type 3 for the Quadratic Formula
Type 4 for Cramer's Rule
Type 5 for Averages
Type -1 to quit
4
You have selected Cramer's Rule
Enter the first coefficient of the first equation: 2
Enter the second coefficient of the first equation: 3
Enter the third coefficient of the first equation: -2
Enter the fourth coefficient of the first equation: 4
Enter the first coefficient of the second equation: 3
Enter the second coefficient of the second equation: -2
Enter the third coefficient of the second equation: 2
Enter the fourth coefficient of the second equation: 16
Enter the first coefficient of the third equation: -1
Enter the second coefficient of the third equation: -12
Enter the third coefficient of the third equation: 8
Enter the fourth coefficient of the third equation: 5
D = 14.0
x = 3.0
y = 5.0
z = 8.5
What would you like to do now?
Type 1 for Decimal Binary Operations
Type 2 for Fractional Binary Operations
Type 3 for the Quadratic Formula
Type 4 for Cramer's Rule
Type 5 for Averages
Type -1 to quit
-1
Are you sure you want to quit? Type -10 for yes:
-10
(^_^) That was fun. See you again!(^_^)
Press any key to continue . . .
Do you get it now?
-
What are your view on atheism ? (im muslim just curious about ur pt of view)
Where are you from ? ( nothing personal just curious)
Is there a site that has some of the "7adeeth el rasool" ? (dnt know how to say in english sry)
First off, Peace Be Upon You.
Atheism - I have nothing against atheism really. As long as they don't bother me and leave me in peace, then I do the same to them.
Where I'm from - I'm from Iran; I'm Persian.
"7adeeth el rasool"- do you mean Hadith? Here, try this:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/
I'll look that tomorrow, I got that article in a paper form and don't feel like trying to find it at 2.00 am just to find one name. Anyways, a little googling gave me this link:http://www.beliefnet.com/story/146/story_14617_1.html
What do you think of it? The article I was talking about was pretty much like that, basically it could be just a translation of that text.
Bleh, that article is just that--- an article. She calls herself a "Sunni Muslim with Sufi beliefs" when the Noble Qur'an clearly states that sectarianism is forbidden. And she said one of the important reasons that she was a Muslim is because her parents were. That's totally wrong and goes against what the Noble Qur'an says. The Noble Qur'an states that people should not follow their parent's religions blindly. Now, I'm not the one to judge, but from that article, it seemed as if that women just didn't study Islam as much as I have. Anyone can write a book, that doesn't make you credible.
As I said, the Noble Qur'an states that women must wear hijab, just as men have to do it. Wearing a headscarf with a long-sleeved shirt and jeans is fine.
And one more thing, she states in the last paragraph of that article that the zero was invented by Arabs. It was the Hindus which developed it independently at an earlier date, and they should be the ones that receive credit for it.
-
I'm saying noone knows FOR SURE. However it is logically "impossible" for example, there to be "The ONE" person you are destined to fall in love with. Its one of those things that doesn't make LOGICAL sense, but can't be disproven. I, personally don't believe in love.
Who said anything about one? I don't believe that either. You should get several friends, and it will come to you. Don't look for it, it should come to you.
-
just because people claim to see ghosts doesn't mean they are real. I've seen Santa Claus and the Easter bunny... :roll:
-
Poopingman did you even read my post?
Yes, and what is your experience exactly? High School? Trust me, what most consider "love" in high school is exactly what you said, lust.When you love someone, there isn't any lust involved. You love them for who they are, not because you want sex with them. Now, I know a girl, and she means a lot to me, more than any girl. The thing is, I don't feel for her the same way I do about other girls. For other girls, I feel "oh yeah, I would want to hit that..etc." but with her, it's different. I am not sure how to explain it. It's not that I don't want sex, it's that it isn't important with reguards to her. Just being with her, talking to her, and making her happy is more than enough for me.
Is that love? I wouldn't know. But when I met her I couldn't stop thinking about her for several days...and I still can't stop. Sometimes I just stop whatever I'm doing and just think about her, it feels good.
You tell me what that is if not love. :?
-
Um... I made this calculator because the windows one sucks. Like I said, my calculator can do so much more and faster.
I listened to Stairway to Heaven for the first time today
in Off-Topic
Posted
the song... is so wonderful.
After listening to it 3 times in a row, the fourth time I broke into tears... this song is... I don't know how to explain... :cry: