TollHouse

My point is that he did make antagonizing remarks. It's in my first post (i.e. - "You've never taken upper level math have you?").

I understand for most people mathematics is a difficult subject to grasp and that's fine but when someone bastardizes mathematics to insult someone than they better be prepared to eat some crow.



I don't understand where D[formed] is equivalent to D[now] - D[orig] or what exactly this is supposed to represent. D[now] and D[orig] just pop into the scene in one of the last steps.

Also the syntact of (D/D[i])[orig] is wrong, but it appears to just be a typo.

All the subscripted P's and D's make this example hard to follow.

Gooch's dad

I thought maybe Douglas was referring to the bit about Dformed too. But there is no error there.

He sort of skipped a few steps, but they are implicit in the assumptions he made for that scenario:

If you start with Porig and Dorig, these represent the Parent and Daughter isotopes. You know that the daughter isotope in this case is stable.

In the present time, you have Pnow, Dformed, and the unchanged amount of original daughter isotope, Dorigin.

So Dformed = Dnow - Dorig

No big deal.

-Kelly

TollHouse

Well, unlike Louis, I'm sure Douglas will tell us what's wrong with the equation once he's done dicking around with us...

Douglas J. Bender

Koy,


That's quite clear.

Are you saying that I am also, but that I'm afraid to admit it?

Well, that's a mark in your favor, that you admit that you are not necessarily proud of being "completely disinterested in the fragile egos of others". The next step is civility and a degree of "compassion".

What you seem to be unaware of is that when people begin personal attacks and mockery of individuals ("cretinist", "idiot", etcetera), that that ends up "throwing the focus off of what is primary so that everyone addresses what is (ultimately) ancillary". I've seen it happen here quite a bit. Besides, the other person in a debate happens to be a human being too (of course, for materialists, that ultimately doesn't mean anything more than saying that they are purposelessly "thrown together" bits and pieces of particles of physics and DNA, essentially).


In Christ,

Douglas

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Tollhouse,

I have not been "dicking around" with anyone - I truly want to see if any of the self-anointed "mathematics geniuses" here can discern what the obvious error in ardipithecus' reasoning is over on that initial post in that other forum. I think they haven't been given enough time to either see this thread, or to respond to it. I'll explain the error tomorrow. Oh, and by the way, it only took me maybe 10 minutes to read ardipithecus' post, jot down the relevant assumptions, mark down two relevant quotes of his (hers?), and figure out the error - so, it's not that I don't have the time to figure out or explain the error, and it's not that it would be too difficult to describe the error. It's just that I actually would like to know if anyone else here can see, on their own, what it is (Goliath...Scientiae...anyone...Hello?).

In Christ,

Douglas

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Daggah

Douglas, YOU are a hypocrite. Just because you try to make yourself look more intelligent in your attacks on us does not make your attacks on us better than our attacks on you.

Get over it.

Vorkosigan

We're all adults here, Douglas, so just point out the error and move on.

Vorkosigan

Douglas J. Bender

Daggah,


I am not trying to make myself look more intelligent in my "attacks" on anyone. And I do not claim that any "attacks" on anyone is any "better than" (more "righteous" than) your attacks on me or on anyone else. And, I have not "attacked" anyone here in this thread, other than to comment about how juvenile some of the "attacks" upon LouisBooth have been - I wonder why those who started those attacks now seem to find that pointing out their juvenile nature is "not nice".

I am no hypocrite, Daggah - I've never said that personal attacks were justified or "acceptable". When I engage in calling someone "moron" or "idiot" (in some other threads here), it has been in direct response to their doing so to someone else, and I do so in order to act as a kind of "mirror" so that they, and lurkers, can more clearly see just how annoying, unnecessary, and juvenile such behavior is. (Of course, when I have called Scientiae a "liar", I was completely serious.)


In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

Vorkosigan,

Tomorrow. Since we're "all adults here", I assume we can all wait one day before I point out the error.

Also, imagine if I (or some other Creationist) had said, to you, or to Scientiae, or to hezekiahjones (etcetera), if the situation was reversed:
Do you think they'd let up on me (or another Creationist)? Do you think they would not mock and dance and scorn, saying that I (or whatever Creationist was involved) obviously did not understand simple mathematics or science, since I could not discern an obvious and flagrant error? I guarantee you, the answer is that they would gleefully ridicule me, and for an extended period, probably beginning a thread just in order to do so. It's happened here before. It's amazing - you people want to be treated with kid gloves, and with utter respect, but you want to be able to pour contempt on those you disagree with, whenever you feel like it. Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

In Christ,

Douglas

Ragnarok

Well dividing by Di at the end of case 1 doesn't really do anything. I think what he wanted to do was "normalize" for the amount of non reacting daughter isotope. Should have subtracted from Dnow. Is that what you're getting at?