Originally posted by RJHindsActually, I have used binary and hex for about 50 years. I know exactly what they are. I asked you if 10 represents the number 2. It represents 2. Period. Whether or not there is the character '2' it still refers to two things.
There is no 2 (two) in binary. Everything in binary has to be representd by 0 (zero) and 1 (one). Like this:
1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
You are playing with semantics for your own sick humor.
Originally posted by sonhouseIf you look back at my earlier answer to your question, you would have seen that I did say that the binary "1 0" would represent "2" in the decimal system. However, the point was to show that 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. It all depends on the definition of terms.
Actually, I have used binary and hex for about 50 years. I know exactly what they are. I asked you if 10 represents the number 2. It represents 2. Period. Whether or not there is the character '2' it still refers to two things.
You are playing with semantics for your own sick humor.
Another example is adding one ball of dough to another ball of dough and you would have a bigger ball of dough.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are even a bigger moron than I thought before.
If you look back at my earlier answer to your question, you would have seen that I did say that the binary "1 0" would represent "2" in the decimal system. However, the point was to show that 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. It all depends on the definition of terms.
Another example is adding one ball of dough to another ball of dough and you would have a bigger ball of dough.
Originally posted by humyWith my four finger with my right hand I can represent 16 values, using the binary system. Finger up, finger down. This can easily be converted by the hexadecimal system as half a byte. By using the left hand in a similar way I can represent any binary number with 16 digits. (What about the thumb? I use it as a carry in addition...)
I can just imagine an intelligent starfish counting; lifting the tip of each leg one at a time.
A starfish can represent 5 digit binary numbers, meaning that they can count to 32.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou can't add. So you are in need of...
With my four finger with my right hand I can represent 16 values, using the binary system. Finger up, finger down. This can easily be converted by the hexadecimal system as half a byte. By using the left hand in a similar way I can represent any binary number with 16 digits. (What about the thumb? I use it as a carry in addition...)
A starfish can represent 5 digit binary numbers, meaning that they can count to 32.
The Moron Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsI am in no need of any moron. Not even you.
You can't add. So you are in need of...
The Moron Instructor
Why do I think you are a moron? Because you have recently heard of the binary system, and suddenly you think you know all about it. And then you use it to prove some point in you twisted views.
That's why I think you are a moron.
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe starfish could not count to 32. The five points would be represented in binary as ...
I am in no need of any moron. Not even you.
Why do I think you are a moron? Because you have recently heard of the binary system, and suddenly you think you know all about it. And then you use it to prove some point in you twisted views.
That's why I think you are a moron.
1 1 1 1 1
that equals 31 in decimal, not 32.
I have no real intention to address the OP, for better or for worse.
Instead, I just wanted to offer my $0.02-opinion that those of you berating the theist posters in this thread are surely failing in your presumed goal of demonstrating the lack of validity of all religions (Christianity in particular).
And I don't mean "failing" in terms of "failing" to provide relevant evidence (I personally think the Theory of Evolution is a valid and well-substantiated one, and I personally acknowledge the scientific/historical inaccuracies of religious texts including the Christian Bible), but rather "failing" to go about it in the right way: making asymmetrical, anecdotal comparisons of Christians to Nazis and Muslims to terrorists; leveling demeaning (and frankly unoriginal) ad hominem attacks such as "You stupid ignorant moron"; and using generally condescending language do not a mind-changing argument make.
Again, I would say that intellectually, in more ways than not, I am on actually on "your side." But at best, your rhetorical tactics are ineffective, and at worst, pointlessly cruel.
This thread has gone back and forth for four whole pages without achieving anything. Faith is nothing whatsoever to do with science, and it never will be. Scientists may have faith or they may not. Believers never apply logical argument to their beliefs: how can they? Belief is not supportable by argument, even if the Jesuits think so, you either believe or you don't, end of story. Neither "side" should consider attempting to "convert" the other, there's simply no point.
I wish religion would stay in Spirituality, the appropriate forum for any discussion of this type, and leave this forum to the interesting new scientific discoveries being made all around us every day. But I suppose that's too much to hope for.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd why, my dear moron, do you think the starfish starts with one? Why don't they start with zero? What does your creationist black bible tell you?
The starfish could not count to 32. The five points would be represented in binary as ...
1 1 1 1 1
that equals 31 in decimal, not 32.
Originally posted by wittywonkaAnd the same would apply to the theists using the same tactics which you have to agree also is happening with great frequency here.
I have no real intention to address the OP, for better or for worse.
Instead, I just wanted to offer my $0.02-opinion that those of you berating the theist posters in this thread are surely failing in your presumed goal of demonstrating the lack of validity of all religions (Christianity in particular).
And I don't mean "failing" in terms of "failin ...[text shortened]... ur side." But at best, your rhetorical tactics are ineffective, and at worst, pointlessly cruel.
Originally posted by wittywonka
I have no real intention to address the OP, for better or for worse.
Instead, I just wanted to offer my $0.02-opinion that those of you berating the theist posters in this thread are surely failing in your presumed goal of demonstrating the lack of validity of all religions (Christianity in particular).
And I don't mean "failing" in terms of "failin ...[text shortened]... ur side." But at best, your rhetorical tactics are ineffective, and at worst, pointlessly cruel.
"You stupid ignorant moron"; and using generally condescending language do not a mind-changing argument make.
This is true. But it is also true that in is not possible to make a “mind-changing argument” to someone who just uses condescending language all the time and doesn't accept ANY rational argument, no matter HOW valid, esp from anyone who doesn't agree with him. With such a person, I would be wasting my time attempting to change his mind about anything (thus I don't try ) for he is beyond all hope of help or ever learning anything new. So might as well just be honest and tell what virtually everyone else here knows and thinks of him which is "You stupid ignorant moron" which is probably what most people here would want to say about him (if not something far worse ) but too polite to do so. I am polite only to those that are at least willing, just like I am, to seriously consider other peoples reasoning (excluding pure idiocy ) contrary to their own even if they still totally disagree with it.
Originally posted by humySee the problem with that logic is that as soon as you acknowledge that your posts have absolutely no chance of changing your opponent's mind, then your only remaining motive for posting at all must be selfish: either to make yourself feel good, or to make your opponent feel bad, which is just another (repulsive, I might add) way to make yourself feel good."You stupid ignorant moron"; and using generally condescending language do not a mind-changing argument make.
This is true. But it is also true that in is not possible to make a “mind-changing argument” to someone who just uses condescending language all the time and doesn't accept ANY rational argument, no matter HOW valid, esp from an ...[text shortened]... ing (excluding pure idiocy ) contrary to their own even if they still totally disagree with it.
And yes, this same logic applies to those theist posters, too, some of whom I also suspect are, ultimately, not interested in debate as a means to an end of convincing someone else of a certain opinion but rather simply as a means to an end in itself.