Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

[Ali_Cena]

Greetings,


I'm confused. How does posting something you don't understand help make your point?

As it stands, the logic you've quoted above is irrelevant to whether or not it's possible to prove 4+4=8.

Peace

LOL i was going to ask you the same thing, how does stating "Im confused" help make YOUR point?????----How does posting something you dont understand---"Im confused" help make your point????????????? answer me this
Peace out.:rollseyes

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You are something of a comedian, Ali Cena.

Greetings, well firstly my point was that you can prove 4+4=8, and whether or not me understanding it becuase of it being university level work, me being 16 what do you think? should i be able to understand and know university stuff?-no.

YES - if you are attempting to use it in debate.

secondly if you think that people can not prove 4+4=8 then you are wrong, my post might be irrelevent-as i was not aware of what was going on with the math, you might be, and if you think it doesnt well state how, if you are a mathmatician that is.

I'm not a mathematician; I'm just a person who reads a lot. I've already stated how your copy-pasted bit of text doesn't apply to the question at hand: it is directed towards a different problem. In the simplest possible way, it is irrelevant.

Well lets put it this way, 4+4=8 can be proven, if you think it cant then learn proof by contradiction, and set theory.

If you think it can, then read about Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

now if you input the values of lets say 4 and 8 into for example P and Q or X you will be able to prove 4+4=8.
Peace out,

Into which proof? You've given five, none of which are related to the question of whether you can prove 4 + 4 = 8.

The concept of addition relies on the basic axioms of mathematics, which themselves have to be assumed - they cannot be proven. We can prove addition is true only by reference to the axioms - further than that we cannot go.

Peace

 

[Ali_Cena]

Greetings,

You are something of a comedian, Ali Cena.

Hi CZ, umm you got some funny sense of humour...:rollseyes

YES - if you are attempting to use it in debate.

well i wasent in a debate, i was stating a point, basically i was just saying, that you can prove 4+4=8, i wasnt debating. so you are right if you are using it in a debate i shoulnd know my stuff, which i was not in.

I'm not a mathematician; I'm just a person who reads a lot. I've already stated how your copy-pasted bit of text doesn't apply to the question at hand: it is directed towards a different problem. In the simplest possible way, it is irrelevant.

i am not a mathamatis eathier. well its faster than putting it into your own word, especially if the main "letters" used have maths involved-which can be hard to type up well i dont think thier was a question involved; i mean no one gave me a question to answer, but it did have something to do with prooving stuff didint it? so i dont think it was irrelevent.

If you think it can, then read about Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

no thanks i will stick with AS mathamatics, lol why dont you read a bit about proof by contradiction theorm?, i mean you are older and i would suggest you are of university level> right?

Into which proof? You've given five, none of which are related to the question of whether you can prove 4 + 4 = 8.

umm i am positive you can prove it, i mean if i was in an exam, and the question was 4+4= x find x then i can put down any number, and then say well hold on it is not 8 cuz you cant prove that sir.. think about it, u telling me you cant prove 4+4=8, then i dont think maths has "EVOLVED" properly, and still at stage 1.

The concept of addition relies on the basic axioms of mathematics, which themselves have to be assumed - they cannot be proven. We can prove addition is true only by reference to the axioms - further than that we cannot go.

umm dont know what you were saying here-lol couldnt understand it

Peace

umm CZ if you found my reply funny; umm well i wasnt trying to amuse you.
second off the topic of this thread is BIOLOGICAL evolution, not how maths has evolved badly , so we shouldnt go far:thumbs_up

Peace to you anwways, see you around.

 

[Hamayun]

I can prove 4 + 4 is 8.

Follow these simple steps:

1. Go to the supermarket

2. Buy 8 apples

3. Go back home

4. Put the apples on a table

5. Put 4 apples on one side and 4 apples on the other side of the table

6. Count the first group of 4 apples. The answer will be 4

7. Now count the second group of apples. The answer again is 4

8. Now merge the two groups of apples and count them again. The answer is 8

No offence but why go off on a tangent about something as silly as this? :?

 

[Ali_Cena]

Asalaam wa alykum,
Brother Hamayun, i was just stating you can prove it, and then CZ starts saying no you cant lolz true it is a silly subject, that is obviouse-4+4=8

 

[Hamayun]

Asalaam wa alykum,
Brother Hamayun, i was just stating you can prove it, and then CZ starts saying no you cant lolz true it is a silly subject, that is obviouse-4+4=8

I know Brother Ali but now CZ has my simple and easy instructions on how to add he will be able to prove it too. All he has to do is visit the supermarket.

Maybe I should write a book..... "How to add 4+4 for dummies" :rollseyes

 

[Ali_Cena]

lol joker, brother Hamayun,
Wasallam, see you around brohter.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I can prove 4 + 4 is 8.

Follow these simple steps:

1. Go to the supermarket

2. Buy 8 apples

3. Go back home

4. Put the apples on a table

5. Put 4 apples on one side and 4 apples on the other side of the table

6. Count the first group of 4 apples. The answer will be 4

7. Now count the second group of apples. The answer again is 4

8. Now merge the two groups of apples and count them again. The answer is 8

That proof assumes what it is trying to prove, i. e. that numbers behave in the way we have assumed they do.

No offence but why go off on a tangent about something as silly as this? :?

I can fully understand why you think this is not related to the topic. It started because of something that root said about the word "proof", which is something a lot of these discussions end up circling around.

It's not a silly subject though. The point is that the things we're talking about can't be proven outside of their frame of reference (if they can be proven at all, that is). Creationism can't be proven outside of a religious framework; evolution can't be proven outside of a biological framework; nothing in mathematics can be proven outside of a mathematical frame of reference.

Just because these systems may seem convincing to us doesn't necessarily mean they have anything to do with reality. They are systems we have invented to help us understand the world. Even mathematics, which self-evidently works, relies on assumptions that cannot be proven.

This doesn't take anything away from the usefulness of mathematics, but it does teach you something about the nature of "proof", which I would guess is the number one most frequently misunderstood word on this forum.

Ali Cena: ask your maths teacher whether they think 2 + 2 = 4 can be proven.

Peace

 

[Ali_Cena]

Ali Cena: ask your maths teacher whether they think 2 + 2 = 4 can be proven.

Peace

LOL hi, umm if you read my previouse posts, i told you that even my next door neaghbour who has got a Masters degree in mathamatics, was telling me one day that in his university exam he was told to prove 1+1=2; lolz that sounds silly but trust me thats waht came on his exam papper,

i have told my teacher who is one of them maths geeks lol he said it can be proven man he told me to check on set theory, and proof by contradiction theory, i mean you look them up and FULLY UNDERSTAND THOSE theoroms, or whatever, and then get back to me. becuase even my next door neighbour had a questions proof 1+1=2,
trust me i wouldnt have said 4+4=8 can be proven withouth going to a specialist in maths.
Peace out roger doger.

 

[Ali_Cena]

Hi, CZ go to this website for proof of 4+4=8:

http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/4p4e8.html

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Hi, CZ go to this website for proof of 4+4=8:

http://us.metamath.org/mpeuni/4p4e8.html

I suppose I should have seen this coming: we are understanding different things by the word "proof". As usual.

I'm talking about proving something to be true. You're talking about mathematical proof (i.e., within a mathematical frame of reference).

Of course it's possible to prove 1 + 1 = 2 if you assume the axioms of mathematics. That's exactly what Metamath does. And well - it's a fascinating site.

But can we really prove that 1 + 1 = 2 is true? It certainly works, as all the feats of engineering in the world will attest, but it relies on assumptions that humans have created, and therefore cannot be proved outright.

This is the problem with words like "proof" and "truth": none of us can ever really get a handle on these concepts. To see the different interpretations people have of them, read this forum on any day of the week.

Evolution seems true for me, and creationism might seem true for you, but neither of us will ever get a proof of either of them. That is my belief, which obviously cannot be proven either!

Peace

 

[Hamayun]

Greetings,


That proof assumes what it is trying to prove, i. e. that numbers behave in the way we have assumed they do.

There are no assumptions...

If you have 8 apples on a table it is a fact not an assumption.

If they were imaginary apples then maybe... but these are real apples.

 

[wth1257]

Greetings,


That proof assumes what it is trying to prove, i. e. that numbers behave in the way we have assumed they do.



I can fully understand why you think this is not related to the topic. It started because of something that root said about the word "proof", which is something a lot of these discussions end up circling around.

It's not a silly subject though. The point is that the things we're talking about can't be proven outside of their frame of reference (if they can be proven at all, that is). Creationism can't be proven outside of a religious framework; evolution can't be proven outside of a biological framework; nothing in mathematics can be proven outside of a mathematical frame of reference.

Just because these systems may seem convincing to us doesn't necessarily mean they have anything to do with reality. They are systems we have invented to help us understand the world. Even mathematics, which self-evidently works, relies on assumptions that cannot be proven.

This doesn't take anything away from the usefulness of mathematics, but it does teach you something about the nature of "proof", which I would guess is the number one most frequently misunderstood word on this forum.

Ali Cena: ask your maths teacher whether they think 2 + 2 = 4 can be proven.

Peace

That is not a proper understanding of axioms. There is nothing inherent about an axiom that is must be an unproveable proposition, it simply is an unproven proposition assumed usually for the purposes of extrapolation.

Two plus two can be proven mathematically within a given axiomatic system, as you mentioned, but people here are conflating judgements of quantity with mathematics. Mathematics has not been "the science of quantitity" saince the late 19th century. Eve saince Cantor, Hilber, Frege, Peno, etc we would say that mathematics is, essentially and not considering the three major "philosophies" or any smaller ones, set theory and logic. Within that framework 2+2=4 can be proven.

 

[Tony]

In Greek mythology, it is Prometheus who created a race of ONLY men out of water and earth, and stole fire from the heaven to give them as a gift. Later on Zeus found at, and as punishment[/i] Zeus created for them the first woman, Pandora, and sent her to dwell amongst them.

!!!!!!!! think Pandora was mild and gentle compared to my wife !!!!!!!!
only joling, Allahs peace and blessings be upon her

 

[Ali_Cena]

Hi wth, good reply
glad to see you around

peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

That is not a proper understanding of axioms. There is nothing inherent about an axiom that is must be an unproveable proposition, it simply is an unproven proposition assumed usually for the purposes of extrapolation.

Two plus two can be proven mathematically within a given axiomatic system, as you mentioned, but people here are conflating judgements of quantity with mathematics. Mathematics has not been "the science of quantitity" saince the late 19th century. Eve saince Cantor, Hilber, Frege, Peno, etc we would say that mathematics is, essentially and not considering the three major "philosophies" or any smaller ones, set theory and logic. Within that framework 2+2=4 can be proven.

Umm, show me where you disagree with me. I'm arguing exactly the same thing as you here!

Peace

 

[YusufNoor]

an interesting quote from the BBC today:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree. CHARLES DARWIN (1809-82) The Origin of Species (1859)

just saying...

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

an interesting quote from the BBC today:

Interesting, yet misleading when quoted out of context. Read the whole paragraph that Darwin wrote:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Peace

 

[جوري]

Greetings,


Interesting, yet misleading when quoted out of context. Read the whole paragraph that Darwin wrote:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Peace

what is your understanding of the quote in the context you provided?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

what is your understanding of the quote in the context you provided?

Are you asking for an explanation of Darwin's words?

It ought to be clear that quoting the first sentence of the paragraph on its own completely alters the intended meaning of the full paragraph.

A bit like hearing someone saying "Don't Panic" and taking out the "Don't".

Peace