Why Darwinism isn't true.
-
Hope pictorials help.
-
Lets see wat is the new thing u have brought out
What is true , may not be the truth : - You are too stupid to understand this simple concept. Because of your limitation of the understanding of the deeper meaning of the word TRUTH from TRUE, you cant get it out of your head. U are just stuck at YOUR MEANING of TRUTH deriving from the word TRUE from the dictionary.
I don't know about u but tis is not the point we r discussing for a very long time now. We r talking about wat is your definition of truth, which u state it as "actual existence". Suddenly u brought out tis thing which is really non relevant. Nevertheless I have given an appropriate answer which u did not comment on 22 Jan 1203pm
So do u agree in the beginning, with your tons of message saying tat scientist cannot discern wat is true or false, tat science does not establish truth, tat science is not truth etc is wrong because science is about finding the truth. It is similar to theologist trying to find "truth". They may be wrong and they don't have to succeed. But the objective is to find the truth.
My stance is made clear. I elaborated my truth already. U KNOW my truth. Unless you are stupid, u keep on asking. Which looks to be the norm to you. Cause u keep asking when the answers are there.
THEN STATE IT ! Why is it so difficult to ask u to state your own stand. U say it is actual existence, then u say tat is just close then now u just die die refuse to state it out. Why r u so chicken ? U cannot stand for your truth ?
WRONG - 0/0 = ITS UNDEFINED . NEVER INFINITY . Obviously, you dont have ur facts right. So you are talking rubbish too, gibberish. So you have no right to say i am talking rubbish when you yourself dont know what you are talking about. Again, proves that u are stupid. Yes i admit, Pais my typo error, like so many typos i make. I admit.
Tat is again rubbish here. Wat does 0 to infinity means to u ? Tat is the whole number series ! 0 to infinity is identical to undefined. And wat makes u think it is not infinity ? Since u said it is undefined, it means it could be 0, 1, 1000, 10000000000 or 1*10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000. It goes on and on. It is really infinity.
AGAIN, its obvious i said its my mistake, and ALL SUBSEQUENT POSTS DO NOT RELFECT THAT STATEMENT(15JAN2010). But obviously, you are too stupid, or u are ignoring my omission, or stubborn, or just being a moron.
I did not talk about the true and false thingy, which u admitted is your mistake. But I talked about u saying tat the domain of theologist's is about truth and not the scientist. So u r telling me now, not only is the first portion of the statement wrong, the second part is also wrong ? So wat is your stand then ? Is truth scientist domain or theologist's domain ?
Actual Existence. They are searching for the TRUTH of God's Existence. Once again, you are stupid. U cant differentiate between Search of the Truth, and Search of the EXISTENCE of TRUTH. Obvsiously, you are again, stupid. Hence, i am NOT trying to avoid the question altogether. Instead U FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.
Tat is not wat u said. U said
NO. TRUTH OF GOD IS TRUTH OF GOD.
TRUTH OF HIS EXISTENCE IS TRUTH OF THIS EXISTENCE.
Now explain tat sentence. U never even try
Now I got to list the below again because u never answer them
1) U say truth = actuality, and actuality in dictionary = the state of being actual reality, is ok. Then when I show u the dictionary defintion of science, which is stated as a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts/truths, u say the dictionary is limited. U believe the dicitionary for one word and do not believe in another. Wat a double standard u have
Unless u start to make your stand clear instead of throwing references, then Tis still stands true. U refuse to elaborate wat your truth is about and the only explanation u said is again "actual reality".
2) U said u think out of the box,and said "Whatever dictionary put there. fair enoug, I, like the Intellectuals and Philosophers DO NOT BELIEVE that the word TRUTH is so easy to define. Thats it."
But then u keep saying u define the word consistently as "actuality" ? So is it easy to define or not easy to define ?
Unless u start to make your stand clear instead of throwing references, then Tis still stands true. U refuse to elaborate wat your truth is about and the only explanation u said is again "actual reality".
3) U say theologist is the only one who can find the truth. It is because they try to find god existence. I said scientist also find gravity existence too. U say is because they r different field so is okie. DO u think u can convince any matured person with tat line of thinking and double standards ? So is reality different for both cases ? Your definition says "actual reality". Elaborate why it is different for the theologist and scientist then
U never succeed in showing wat is the difference between theologist and scientist. U just throw a lot of rubbish and double standard but u fail. And when questioned, u refused to elaborate. SO I can only assume u r just talking cock
4) U say truth = actuality=actual reality. Then u say scientist only find the why and how, which r the actual reality, u say they r not truth. To u, finding out why there is rain, or wind, or gravity give same acceleration to different mass is all not the truth (truth = actual reality from your definition) SO u r living in your delusional world where all reality is not truth ?
This is again true. If u refuse to clarify your definition of truth, then it will be "actual existence" and then u r living in your delusinal world where everything tat is understood by science is not reality to u
5) Then u try to say tat mathematics truth is not truth as well. U said 1+1=2 is not the truth and u came out with examples of eggs and sperms and apples and oranges. U claim 1 apple + 1 orange not equal to 2 apples. Isn't tat obvious ? U use the equation wrongly. Then u say sperm + egg = 1 fertilised egg. Then again aren't u using the equation wrongly again ? R we talking about chemistry equation here ? We r talking about maths and u talk about putting garbages into the right equation to proclaim the equation wrong. Tat is nonsene
U do came out with another rubbish statement to the equation. U said tat since it is true, so adding all rubbish into it could also make it true. WRONG. U have to follow the right way to use it then it is true. Otherwise u r just playing with words. U can have the most sophisticated equipment but u still have to obey its instruction manual. SO it is still rubbish from u
6) Not daunted, u again come out with another nonsense.
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
BECASUE IT IS NOT ZERO ! Dividing anything by zero is infinity. So the real answer is, it could be anything depending on wat your subject is. Wat do u understand by dividing zero ? How do u physically describe it ? From logic, there is nothing wrong with tis statement.
Then u claim stupid thing like why 0/0 should be zero
YOUR REPLY on 23 Jan 101pm
I pointed out that 0 divided by 0 , SHOULD be 0 right ?
Look at MY REPLY on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Lets see wat is the new thing u have brought out
I don't know about u but tis is not the point we r discussing for a very long time now. We r talking about wat is your definition of truth, which u state it as "actual existence". Suddenly u brought out tis thing which is really non relevant. Nevertheless I have given an appropriate answer which u did not comment on 22 Jan 1203pm
So do u agree in the beginning, with your tons of message saying tat scientist cannot discern wat is true or false, tat science does not establish truth, tat science is not truth etc is wrong because science is about finding the truth. It is similar to theologist trying to find "truth". They may be wrong and they don't have to succeed. But the objective is to find the truth.
THEN STATE IT ! Why is it so difficult to ask u to state your own stand. U say it is actual existence, then u say tat is just close then now u just die die refuse to state it out. Why r u so chicken ? U cannot stand for your truth ?
Tat is again rubbish here. Wat does 0 to infinity means to u ? Tat is the whole number series ! 0 to infinity is identical to undefined. And wat makes u think it is not infinity ? Since u said it is undefined, it means it could be 0, 1, 1000, 10000000000 or 1*10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000. It goes on and on. It is really infinity.
I did not talk about the true and false thingy, which u admitted is your mistake. But I talked about u saying tat the domain of theologist's is about truth and not the scientist. So u r telling me now, not only is the first portion of the statement wrong, the second part is also wrong ? So wat is your stand then ? Is truth scientist domain or theologist's domain ?
Tat is not wat u said. U said
NO. TRUTH OF GOD IS TRUTH OF GOD.
TRUTH OF HIS EXISTENCE IS TRUTH OF THIS EXISTENCE.
Now explain tat sentence. U never even try
Now I got to list the below again because u never answer them
1) U say truth = actuality, and actuality in dictionary = the state of being actual reality, is ok. Then when I show u the dictionary defintion of science, which is stated as a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts/truths, u say the dictionary is limited. U believe the dicitionary for one word and do not believe in another. Wat a double standard u have
Unless u start to make your stand clear instead of throwing references, then Tis still stands true. U refuse to elaborate wat your truth is about and the only explanation u said is again "actual reality".
2) U said u think out of the box,and said "Whatever dictionary put there. fair enoug, I, like the Intellectuals and Philosophers DO NOT BELIEVE that the word TRUTH is so easy to define. Thats it."
But then u keep saying u define the word consistently as "actuality" ? So is it easy to define or not easy to define ?
Unless u start to make your stand clear instead of throwing references, then Tis still stands true. U refuse to elaborate wat your truth is about and the only explanation u said is again "actual reality".
3) U say theologist is the only one who can find the truth. It is because they try to find god existence. I said scientist also find gravity existence too. U say is because they r different field so is okie. DO u think u can convince any matured person with tat line of thinking and double standards ? So is reality different for both cases ? Your definition says "actual reality". Elaborate why it is different for the theologist and scientist then
U never succeed in showing wat is the difference between theologist and scientist. U just throw a lot of rubbish and double standard but u fail. And when questioned, u refused to elaborate. SO I can only assume u r just talking cock
4) U say truth = actuality=actual reality. Then u say scientist only find the why and how, which r the actual reality, u say they r not truth. To u, finding out why there is rain, or wind, or gravity give same acceleration to different mass is all not the truth (truth = actual reality from your definition) SO u r living in your delusional world where all reality is not truth ?
This is again true. If u refuse to clarify your definition of truth, then it will be "actual existence" and then u r living in your delusinal world where everything tat is understood by science is not reality to u
5) Then u try to say tat mathematics truth is not truth as well. U said 1+1=2 is not the truth and u came out with examples of eggs and sperms and apples and oranges. U claim 1 apple + 1 orange not equal to 2 apples. Isn't tat obvious ? U use the equation wrongly. Then u say sperm + egg = 1 fertilised egg. Then again aren't u using the equation wrongly again ? R we talking about chemistry equation here ? We r talking about maths and u talk about putting garbages into the right equation to proclaim the equation wrong. Tat is nonsene
U do came out with another rubbish statement to the equation. U said tat since it is true, so adding all rubbish into it could also make it true. WRONG. U have to follow the right way to use it then it is true. Otherwise u r just playing with words. U can have the most sophisticated equipment but u still have to obey its instruction manual. SO it is still rubbish from u
6) Not daunted, u again come out with another nonsense.
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
BECASUE IT IS NOT ZERO ! Dividing anything by zero is infinity. So the real answer is, it could be anything depending on wat your subject is. Wat do u understand by dividing zero ? How do u physically describe it ? From logic, there is nothing wrong with tis statement.
Then u claim stupid thing like why 0/0 should be zero
YOUR REPLY on 23 Jan 101pm
I pointed out that 0 divided by 0 , SHOULD be 0 right ?
Look at MY REPLY on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter.
I ALREADY STATED IT my TRUTH. Close enough is Actual Existence, examples were given, hence my truth is close enough to Actual Existence, of ALL the choices, close enough, i chose this one. And hence, Actual Existence.Too bad if u cant get it. Again u are just too stupid. If u cant get the meaning, its not my fault now.
AGAIN.. u ARE STUPID !
Do u understand the word.. UNDEFINED and INFINITY ? IT CANNOT be INFINITY. It only applies when something is divided by zero. Close to zero, but never reaches zero, thats why, INFINITY. Where else, Zero divide by Zero is UNDEFINED, its because,it becomes UNDEFINED. So please, CHECK before you start to say something STUPID AGAIN, and PULL ANSWERS OUT OF UR ASS AGAIN.
Again, i said Theologists is to find the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD, thier TRUTH is GOD. How can it be the same as Scientists ?
Q: Is truth Theologists, or Scientists Domain ? U misunderstood again, its totally two DIFFERENT FIELDS.
NO. TRUTH OF GOD IS TRUTH OF GOD.
TRUTH OF THIS(TYPO) EXISTENCE IS TRUTH OF THIS EXISTENCE.
List all you want. Answers are THERE. Its in my posts. PLEASE REFER. I am tired of spoon feeding you. I regurgitated again n again, you are just too stupid to understand. So why bother ? U can read yourself.
-
I ALREADY STATED IT my TRUTH. Close enough is Actual Existence, examples were given, hence my truth is close enough to Actual Existence, of ALL the choices, close enough, i chose this one. And hence, Actual Existence.
So is tis your final answer ? If u said close enough, u should elaborate where is it not identical. Otherwise people will just treat it as identical or treat tat u have a limited means to communicate
Do u understand the word.. UNDEFINED and INFINITY ? IT CANNOT be INFINITY. It only applies when something is divided by zero. Close to zero, but never reaches zero, thats why, INFINITY.
Do u understand the meaning of infinity ? When the number can be artitrary large, there is not limit to how large it is, u can consider tat as infinity. In the example of 0/0, the solution could be artitrary large. As large as u want. The way to described it mathmatically is infinity. DO u really have a maths foundation ?
Where else, Zero divide by Zero is UNDEFINED, its because,it becomes UNDEFINED. So please, CHECK before you start to say something STUPID AGAIN, and PULL ANSWERS OUT OF UR ASS AGAIN.
Com'on la ! Is there a limit to your stupidity ? Isn't 0 to infinity something like undefined ? Furthermore there r studies on things such as 0+/0+ (very close to zero but not zero) whereby u could produce answer ranging from, well, 0-infinity. U know who is pulling answers from his ass ? U can read from tis website
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55722.html
L'hopital rule does not tell u wat 0/0 is. because 0/0 is what is called an "indeterminate" wuantity, which is to say that its value depends on what the situation is
which both ƒ(x) and g(x) approach 0 as x approaches 0, may equal any real or infinite value, or may not exist at all, depending on the particular functions ƒ and g
Again, i said Theologists is to find the TRUTH of the EXISTENCE of GOD, thier TRUTH is GOD. How can it be the same as Scientists ?
Their truth r different, however they r the same in finding out the truth of an object. For theologist. it could be god while for scientist it could be for atoms/gravity/electron etc. Why theologist finding the truth of god is different from scientist discovering gravity ?
Q: Is truth Theologists, or Scientists Domain ? U misunderstood again, its totally two DIFFERENT FIELDS.
DO u have problem reading ? I asked u truth is in theologist domain or scientist domain, not asking u r they different field or not.
NO. TRUTH OF GOD IS TRUTH OF GOD.
TRUTH OF THIS(TYPO) EXISTENCE IS TRUTH OF THIS EXISTENCE.
U see, u just do not have the skill to elaborate isn't it ? U r right, u just know how to regurgitate sh!t out when u cannot answer the question
-
Science u still claim your definition is "actual existence", then the below answers still need u to fill in
1) U say truth = actuality, and actuality in dictionary = the state of being actual reality, is ok. Then when I show u the dictionary defintion of science, which is stated as a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts/truths, u say the dictionary is limited. U believe the dicitionary for one word and do not believe in another. Wat a double standard u have
2) U said u think out of the box,and said "Whatever dictionary put there. fair enoug, I, like the Intellectuals and Philosophers DO NOT BELIEVE that the word TRUTH is so easy to define. Thats it."
But then u keep saying u define the word consistently as "actuality" ? So is it easy to define or not easy to define ?
3) U say theologist is the only one who can find the truth. It is because they try to find god existence. I said scientist also find gravity existence too. U say is because they r different field so is okie. DO u think u can convince any matured person with tat line of thinking and double standards ? So is reality different for both cases ? Your definition says "actual reality". Elaborate why it is different for the theologist and scientist then
4) U say truth = actuality=actual reality. Then u say scientist only find the why and how, which r the actual reality, u say they r not truth. To u, finding out why there is rain, or wind, or gravity give same acceleration to different mass is all not the truth (truth = actual reality from your definition) SO u r living in your delusional world where all reality is not truth ?
5) Then u try to say tat mathematics truth is not truth as well. U said 1+1=2 is not the truth and u came out with examples of eggs and sperms and apples and oranges. U claim 1 apple + 1 orange not equal to 2 apples. Isn't tat obvious ? U use the equation wrongly. Then u say sperm + egg = 1 fertilised egg. Then again aren't u using the equation wrongly again ? R we talking about chemistry equation here ? We r talking about maths and u talk about putting garbages into the right equation to proclaim the equation wrong. Tat is nonsene
U do came out with another rubbish statement to the equation. U said tat since it is true, so adding all rubbish into it could also make it true. WRONG. U have to follow the right way to use it then it is true. Otherwise u r just playing with words. U can have the most sophisticated equipment but u still have to obey its instruction manual. SO it is still rubbish from u
6) Not daunted, u again come out with another nonsense.
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
BECASUE IT IS NOT ZERO ! Dividing anything by zero is infinity. So the real answer is, it could be anything depending on wat your subject is. Wat do u understand by dividing zero ? How do u physically describe it ? From logic, there is nothing wrong with tis statement.
Then u claim stupid thing like why 0/0 should be zero
YOUR REPLY on 23 Jan 101pm
I pointed out that 0 divided by 0 , SHOULD be 0 right ?
Look at MY REPLY on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
So is tis your final answer ? If u said close enough, u should elaborate where is it not identical. Otherwise people will just treat it as identical or treat tat u have a limited means to communicate
Do u understand the meaning of infinity ? When the number can be artitrary large, there is not limit to how large it is, u can consider tat as infinity. In the example of 0/0, the solution could be artitrary large. As large as u want. The way to described it mathmatically is infinity. DO u really have a maths foundation ?
Com'on la ! Is there a limit to your stupidity ? Isn't 0 to infinity something like undefined ? Furthermore there r studies on things such as 0+/0+ (very close to zero but not zero) whereby u could produce answer ranging from, well, 0-infinity. U know who is pulling answers from his ass ? U can read from tis website
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55722.html
L'hopital rule does not tell u wat 0/0 is. because 0/0 is what is called an "indeterminate" wuantity, which is to say that its value depends on what the situation is
which both ƒ(x) and g(x) approach 0 as x approaches 0, may equal any real or infinite value, or may not exist at all, depending on the particular functions ƒ and g
Their truth r different, however they r the same in finding out the truth of an object. For theologist. it could be god while for scientist it could be for atoms/gravity/electron etc. Why theologist finding the truth of god is different from scientist discovering gravity ?
DO u have problem reading ? I asked u truth is in theologist domain or scientist domain, not asking u r they different field or not.
U see, u just do not have the skill to elaborate isn't it ? U r right, u just know how to regurgitate sh!t out when u cannot answer the question
Yes, its my final answer. Its close enough for your comprehension. If i say something else, you will just say, as u do, say its not even from the dictionary, and i am not talking english. So , its close enough. Now, simply, refer to my examples regarding Gravity and Rain and all the stuff and see if u can GRASP the meaning of my truth.
If you cant even comprehend that "What is true , may NOT be the truth" There is no point going further. And yes, it IS relevant to everything i said up to this point.
1/0 = Infinity ( thats the idea. Which is correct)
0/0 = Undefined !
Asumming 0/0 technically u allow it to exist, 0x1 = 0 , 0x2 =0 . The following must be true. 0x1 = 0x2 = 0 Right ? If the following is true, Dividing by 0 gives 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 2 . So simplify, you have 1 = 2 . The fallacy is the implicit assumption that dividing by 0 is a legitimate operation.
Now obviously u can spot it.
(x -x)x = 0 = x*2 - x*2
(x-x)x = (x-x) (x+x) Simplify = X = X+ X
Hence 1 = 2
Once again, U MISUNDERSTAND regarding Theologeons and Scientists. We are talking about the Truth of the Existence of God and Truth of God are two totally diffrent thing. If u cant understand that, well, too bad.
See, science on the other hand. I personally believe, is to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Even when science didnt discover it, the truth is already there. Hence the Gravity example. Actual Existence. True statement = Acceleration .
Truth belongs to NO ONE's domain. As explained over and over again regarding Science and Theology ,as expressed by my belief in it.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Science u still claim your definition is "actual existence", then the below answers still need u to fill in
1) U say truth = actuality, and actuality in dictionary = the state of being actual reality, is ok. Then when I show u the dictionary defintion of science, which is stated as a branch of knowledge dealing with a body of facts/truths, u say the dictionary is limited. U believe the dicitionary for one word and do not believe in another. Wat a double standard u have
2) U said u think out of the box,and said "Whatever dictionary put there. fair enoug, I, like the Intellectuals and Philosophers DO NOT BELIEVE that the word TRUTH is so easy to define. Thats it."
But then u keep saying u define the word consistently as "actuality" ? So is it easy to define or not easy to define ?
3) U say theologist is the only one who can find the truth. It is because they try to find god existence. I said scientist also find gravity existence too. U say is because they r different field so is okie. DO u think u can convince any matured person with tat line of thinking and double standards ? So is reality different for both cases ? Your definition says "actual reality". Elaborate why it is different for the theologist and scientist then
4) U say truth = actuality=actual reality. Then u say scientist only find the why and how, which r the actual reality, u say they r not truth. To u, finding out why there is rain, or wind, or gravity give same acceleration to different mass is all not the truth (truth = actual reality from your definition) SO u r living in your delusional world where all reality is not truth ?
5) Then u try to say tat mathematics truth is not truth as well. U said 1+1=2 is not the truth and u came out with examples of eggs and sperms and apples and oranges. U claim 1 apple + 1 orange not equal to 2 apples. Isn't tat obvious ? U use the equation wrongly. Then u say sperm + egg = 1 fertilised egg. Then again aren't u using the equation wrongly again ? R we talking about chemistry equation here ? We r talking about maths and u talk about putting garbages into the right equation to proclaim the equation wrong. Tat is nonsene
U do came out with another rubbish statement to the equation. U said tat since it is true, so adding all rubbish into it could also make it true. WRONG. U have to follow the right way to use it then it is true. Otherwise u r just playing with words. U can have the most sophisticated equipment but u still have to obey its instruction manual. SO it is still rubbish from u
6) Not daunted, u again come out with another nonsense.
0 which is NOTHING divides by 0 NOTHING logically = Nothing. But MATHS cant say its 0. Why ?
BECASUE IT IS NOT ZERO ! Dividing anything by zero is infinity. So the real answer is, it could be anything depending on wat your subject is. Wat do u understand by dividing zero ? How do u physically describe it ? From logic, there is nothing wrong with tis statement.
Then u claim stupid thing like why 0/0 should be zero
YOUR REPLY on 23 Jan 101pm
I pointed out that 0 divided by 0 , SHOULD be 0 right ?
Look at MY REPLY on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter.
Your answers your 6 point questions AGAIN. Like ALL YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS, are answered in the posts. Please Refer to Previous Posts. If u cant understand, you are just too stupid.
You are telling me you are putting the effort on me because you cannot remember what was said earlier?
If you cannot remember or cannot be bothered to check back, it is already obvious that you do not even know what is going on before posting.
YOUR REPLY on 23 Jan 101pm
I pointed out that 0 divided by 0 , SHOULD be 0 right ?
Look at MY REPLY on the 23rd Jan 1.03pm
I pointed to u, it is not. It could be zero to infinity, depending on subject matter.
From what i know, 0/0 = Undifined. Its NOT zero to infinity. Any number divided by 0 = Infinity. It CANNOT = 0 . Because it NEVER touches 0.
-
So just admit it u cant comprehend and understand my logical statements. And i will forgive you for not understanding even tho i have tried hard to explain . Even giving examples, to work your mind.
Perhaps one day u WILL understand. And perhaps we can have this conversation again.
If u were to admit, I will retract all my statements regarding your stupidity and u being stupid. Because, evidence points to me that you are stupid which is true, but it may NOT be the truth. So i take it as a possibility that you are NOT stupid. You CAN understand.
Its obvious that i can understand you, while u are unable to understand me. Fair enough. Move on. You dont have to force my compliance, and i dont have to force mine on you, which i never did.
I already stated , I understood your conceptualisation of truth in its simplest form and I have NO PROBLEM with it.
Please. refer back to my posts and digest it yourself. If you cant get it, too bad. I tried my best.
However, if u wish to continue this charade, I will be more then happy to oblige you until 17th of Feb. It is now totally up to you. The ball is in your court now, u decide how to play ball.
Good luck.
-
So just admit it u cant comprehend and understand my logical statements. And i will forgive you for not understanding even tho i have tried hard to explain . Even giving examples, to work your mind.
I don't really see your way of describing the situation as apt. In the end, u r really just saying tat I am too stupid to understand your idea. U didn't even bother to make it appear nice or seek compromise at all. Since tat is the case, Why don't I put it in perspective
first made a bogus claim, claiming tat
Science is not there to PROVE, it is to find out WHY, to EXPLAIN. They are not to discern what is true and false. Its not even thier doman. It is the Theologists.
This is the start of the whole topic on your definition of truth. U claimed repeatedly tat scientist cannot define the truth (yet in the later part, u claimed tat scientist do come out with truth). U claimed repeatedly tat only theologist can. Obviously to most people who understand english and science, tis statement is ridiculous. Theologist seems to be the one tat always lead people away from the truth while science is the one tat leads us to it.
After tat, u discussed in length how the way things work, how rain come about, discovering gravity etc are all not truth. Tat is again against people understanding of truth. Aren't answering these questions the truth ? But to u, u say they r not truth basically because they r just question of WHY and HOW. Tat is again illogical because it is just the way u phrase a question.
Then according to u, "truth" = actual existence. So in order to be truth, it must prove something out. However the meaing of actual existence is actual reality. In tat case, things such as WHY or HOW r actual realities as well. Even if u want to say "discovering" new things, science do discover gravity, atoms, electrons and photons etc. SO science is still truth in tis definition. Worse still, u say tat theologist can claim truth because they prove the existence of god. U said science do discover atoms/photon etc but they r not truth. Tat is bad double standard
And your definition of truth is derived from the dictionary. When I show u the definition of science from the dictionary, which is body of truth and fact etc, u claimed the dictionary is limited. The dictionary is the one telling u wat is truth and u accept it. When the dictionary tell u wat is science, u refuse to accept it. Isn't tat another bad double standard ? Dictionary tell us the meaning, the interpretation of words and how we use it. However to u, u believe your english standard is better than the dictionary even when u written wrong statements, made spelling errors and written incomplrehensible sentences
After which, u did a complete twist and said tat truth is absolute, and tat the truth discovered by science may not be absolute. U even claimed tat science could not Again tis is not truth. Things such as gravity, which is defined as a force pulling things to a greater mass, is truth because it is happening and observed by all. Things such as 1+1=2 is also the truth no matter wat happened.
And even if u said they r not truth (which u cannot prove) scientist do search for truth, like theologist. No one searches for a lie/falsehood (which is the only conclusion if it is not truth). Even if they fail, even if they cannot succeed, they r searching for a truth. Saying scientists r not interested in truth is rubbish. If u say tat science cannot establish truth, neither do theologist because no matter wat they managed to prove, it is not the truth. Even if they found god, it is also possible he is not the truth. There may be higher truth/being above tis. The god they found could also be fraud, which is again not truth.
After which u turned 180 degrees and say tat truth is not easy to be defined. U say philosopher etc also cannot set a standard of truth and paste an article on it. However, even though they have some differences, the truth which they r interested in is still ultimately the true state of an object. Furthermore u already fix your definition as "actual existence". Then wat the other people think doesn't really matter because we r talking about your definition, not others, and certainly not some article which I suspect u have not read yourself.
Then u came out with stupid examples on how to calculate 1+1=2 and later claimed 0/0 is supposed to be zero. Other than proving u have a bad command of english, u proved u have a bad command of maths as well.
U also came out with arguments such as Mr Sean appear to know your thinking. However, he just say on part of the picture, which is science could be wrong. However he did not comment on the rest of your mistakes. Furthermore if u wanan compare statistic, Larryteo, resevistsianz, deadstroke and me all have problems with your explanation. And surprisingly, your conclusion is tat those who r against u r stupid. If u see the number, u should derive tat u r the stupid one
After which, running out of things to write, u just repeat and repeat your rubbish, and claiming tat somewhere u had written some answer to the question. I challenge repeatedly to u to show your answer which u refuse and just repeat the rubbish. In the end wat conclusions did u manage to draw ?
U r inconsistent with your arguments, u practised double standards, u do not believe in dictionary, u cannot accept wat is reality and not reality and in short u r just stupid, stubborn, fickle minded and lies regularly.
And u know, my patience is really unlimited. I have been doing tis type of arguments since 2003. If u wanna continue your broken argument, I can play with u till Feb 2017. The more u write, the more nonsense u came out with, and the more things I could write about u.
So good luck
-
Both of you are equally stupid.
And you are doing a debate WITHOUT ME?
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Both of you are equally stupid.
And you are doing a debate WITHOUT ME?
One wall of text, mostly argument, hard to follow.
-
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:
One wall of text, mostly argument, hard to follow.
I also dunno what crap they are writing actually. What truth here not truth there. So confusing like my poo.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
I don't really see your way of describing the situation as apt. In the end, u r really just saying tat I am too stupid to understand your idea. U didn't even bother to make it appear nice or seek compromise at all. Since tat is the case, Why don't I put it in perspective
first made a bogus claim, claiming tat
Science is not there to PROVE, it is to find out WHY, to EXPLAIN. They are not to discern what is true and false. Its not even thier doman. It is the Theologists.
This is the start of the whole topic on your definition of truth. U claimed repeatedly tat scientist cannot define the truth (yet in the later part, u claimed tat scientist do come out with truth). U claimed repeatedly tat only theologist can. Obviously to most people who understand english and science, tis statement is ridiculous. Theologist seems to be the one tat always lead people away from the truth while science is the one tat leads us to it.
After tat, u discussed in length how the way things work, how rain come about, discovering gravity etc are all not truth. Tat is again against people understanding of truth. Aren't answering these questions the truth ? But to u, u say they r not truth basically because they r just question of WHY and HOW. Tat is again illogical because it is just the way u phrase a question.
Then according to u, "truth" = actual existence. So in order to be truth, it must prove something out. However the meaing of actual existence is actual reality. In tat case, things such as WHY or HOW r actual realities as well. Even if u want to say "discovering" new things, science do discover gravity, atoms, electrons and photons etc. SO science is still truth in tis definition. Worse still, u say tat theologist can claim truth because they prove the existence of god. U said science do discover atoms/photon etc but they r not truth. Tat is bad double standard
And your definition of truth is derived from the dictionary. When I show u the definition of science from the dictionary, which is body of truth and fact etc, u claimed the dictionary is limited. The dictionary is the one telling u wat is truth and u accept it. When the dictionary tell u wat is science, u refuse to accept it. Isn't tat another bad double standard ? Dictionary tell us the meaning, the interpretation of words and how we use it. However to u, u believe your english standard is better than the dictionary even when u written wrong statements, made spelling errors and written incomplrehensible sentences
After which, u did a complete twist and said tat truth is absolute, and tat the truth discovered by science may not be absolute. U even claimed tat science could not Again tis is not truth. Things such as gravity, which is defined as a force pulling things to a greater mass, is truth because it is happening and observed by all. Things such as 1+1=2 is also the truth no matter wat happened.
And even if u said they r not truth (which u cannot prove) scientist do search for truth, like theologist. No one searches for a lie/falsehood (which is the only conclusion if it is not truth). Even if they fail, even if they cannot succeed, they r searching for a truth. Saying scientists r not interested in truth is rubbish. If u say tat science cannot establish truth, neither do theologist because no matter wat they managed to prove, it is not the truth. Even if they found god, it is also possible he is not the truth. There may be higher truth/being above tis. The god they found could also be fraud, which is again not truth.
After which u turned 180 degrees and say tat truth is not easy to be defined. U say philosopher etc also cannot set a standard of truth and paste an article on it. However, even though they have some differences, the truth which they r interested in is still ultimately the true state of an object. Furthermore u already fix your definition as "actual existence". Then wat the other people think doesn't really matter because we r talking about your definition, not others, and certainly not some article which I suspect u have not read yourself.
Then u came out with stupid examples on how to calculate 1+1=2 and later claimed 0/0 is supposed to be zero. Other than proving u have a bad command of english, u proved u have a bad command of maths as well.
U also came out with arguments such as Mr Sean appear to know your thinking. However, he just say on part of the picture, which is science could be wrong. However he did not comment on the rest of your mistakes. Furthermore if u wanan compare statistic, Larryteo, resevistsianz, deadstroke and me all have problems with your explanation. And surprisingly, your conclusion is tat those who r against u r stupid. If u see the number, u should derive tat u r the stupid one
After which, running out of things to write, u just repeat and repeat your rubbish, and claiming tat somewhere u had written some answer to the question. I challenge repeatedly to u to show your answer which u refuse and just repeat the rubbish. In the end wat conclusions did u manage to draw ?
U r inconsistent with your arguments, u practised double standards, u do not believe in dictionary, u cannot accept wat is reality and not reality and in short u r just stupid, stubborn, fickle minded and lies regularly.
And u know, my patience is really unlimited. I have been doing tis type of arguments since 2003. If u wanna continue your broken argument, I can play with u till Feb 2017. The more u write, the more nonsense u came out with, and the more things I could write about u.
So good luck
First of all, THAT quote u used, i already said. OMMITTED statement. U will realise by then, that ALL SUBSEQUENT POSTS, DO NOT REFLECT THAT STATEMENT. But u keep bringing it up.
I am not here to be nice to you, or anyone for that matter.
Well, since u think I think u are too stupid to understand, then u are too stupid then. I already said, evidence points to u being stupid, is true, but it may not be the truth. Perhaps, it IS the truth as time goes on and u may realise it yourself. Since u have unlimited patience till 2017 Feb, I TOO have unlimited patience. Ball is at ur court, u wanna play ball, i play with you.
Lets continue. Let the GAMES BEGIN.
So, once again, u are being an ass and a stupid person. If u read my posts, u will realise that, gravity is truth. I already said it. U are AGAIN, putting words into my mouth. Which is the norm. Quesionts to me, are NOT TRUTH. They are Explaination, evidence to the TRUTH. Simple. But if you mean Truths to support facts and evidence, YES, i can accept that. Because like i said, the meaning of truth can be used in many many meanings. I am fully able to comprehend. I never said they are not truth AGAIN, i just said science is the How and Why to the Truth. Simple. I NEVER said Science is a search of truth. It CAN find TRUTH in previous statements, but its the How and Why to the Truth. I expect u to be playing with words in this reply. Since u accuse me, well, lets play with words.
"However the meaing of actual existence is actual reality. In tat case, things such as WHY or HOW r actual realities as well" - I can accept that. All i am highlighting is that , i cant accept SCIENCE is TRUTH. Science is still based on Theories. So therefore i cannot accept it to be the TRUTH, because it makes mistakes. Simple. Theologians, they try to find the Truth of the Existence of God. How they go about it, whether they succeed or not, its THIER PORBLEM. There is NO double standard. If u READ carefully, u will understand. But u keep saying the same thing, like u are a dumbass. So , i keep saying the same thing again.
I chose a list of the meanings from the dictionary, because previously, those that do not understand needed a definition from the dictionary which they could understand, so i chose the closest to it. As for science, its the same, however, there is no other definition close to it. So i do not accept it. Simple. I am not limited to the meaning of the dictionary alone. You dont make mistakes ? Its a POT calling a KETTLE BLACK. So, unless u are always correct, just shut your mouth. You are in NO POSITION to say me regarding THIS MATTER.
All i said is that certain theories postulated by them, might NOT BE TRUE. Thats it. Since when did i say anything remotely to the meaning of "Science is a lie, its not true...etc" Did I ? Where ? Again , putting words into my mouth. Which u seem to be VERY FOND of doing, not just with me, but with others as well, since 2003. I have been here since 2004. Just a year after you only. Oh i know. I have been around as much as u to know each other well.
I can just show a latest incident of you , jumping in, thinking you know everything, and people just told u to shut the fuck up, because you dont know whats going on. So, i am actually prepared for it. Your modus operandi is very clear.Of putting things in peoples mouth. Here is BUT another Latest example of you in action.
"After which, u did a complete twist and said tat truth is absolute, and tat the truth discovered by science may not be absolute. U even claimed tat science could not Again tis is not truth. Things such as gravity, which is defined as a force pulling things to a greater mass, is truth because it is happening and observed by all. Things such as 1+1=2 is also the truth no matter wat happened." - Whats that ? Bad grammar! Whats "science could not AGAIN this is not truth" ooh.. i guess you make mistakes too. And i NEVER said 1+1 = 2 is also truth no matter what happedn. I said its TRUE, but NOT the TRUTH. See... again, putting words into my mouth. I guess, its ur character, supported by these evidence, not just lately, but since 2003.
And SINCE WHEN DID I SAY SCIENCE CANNOT ESTABLISH TRUTHS ? Again.. putting words into my mouth. *Bravo* *clap clap*
Once again, i paste the Article, is that Truth cannot be so simply defined. SIMPLE. Something of a reader for you. Example. Once again, u are doing the same thing, u just want to BELIEVE what U WANT TO BELIEVE. Its evidently true. I already said it. Its Example, of the possibilities. Thats it. How hard is that ? I guess u are just too stupid again.. to understand. Very simple, U did not want to accept my definition of my truth, i just open ur mind with the Article. NEVER did i say i have a problem wit yours. I told you in countless posts. I ACCEPT WHAT U SAY. All i am asking is u see my point of view. Thats it. Simple. But no, u had to argue, so obviously, i am not going to be a nice guy anymore since u want to be an ass. Thats why i say u are stupid. I keep saying it over n over again.
Again, i asked u a question not a statement. "I pointed out that 0 divided by 0 , SHOULD be 0 right ?"
All i said is, logically it SHOULD be NOTHING. In maths u cant. Cant compute. Without causing fallacies. Again, u put words into my mouth. Its clear, that Nothing Divides by Nothing Equals Nothing logically. I see u have shut up about the INFINITY and UNDEFINED. Not to mention theories and the likes. But i shall overlook those stupidities.
Well, its either they are too stupid like you, or they have gotten my idea of truth when i say "What is True, may NOT be the TRUTH" . If they think i am stupid, they may say so freely. I am more then capable to accept people calling me stupid if they have evidence to back it up. I got no problem with it.
U just cant get it, so i keep repeating myself. And if u want to find the answers, go look for yourself. I am not your mummy or your daddy spoon feeding you. U asked, i answered previously, u kept asking the same question, so i wll just tell u to refer to posts and read it yourself.
"U r inconsistent with your arguments, u practised double standards, u do not believe in dictionary, u cannot accept wat is reality and not reality and in short u r just stupid, stubborn, fickle minded and lies regularly." Like you.
If u think i am like that, u got suporting evidence, sure. Why not. Fair enough.
Its your choice. What u think about me may be True for you, it might not be the Truth.
If u THINK it is the truth, once again, go ahead. I got no beef with that.
-
Well tis is getting more and more exciting by the minute. Lets go
First, let me start off by showing how many lies u have sprouted
So, once again, u are being an ass and a stupid person. If u read my posts, u will realise that, gravity is truth. I already said it.
Well I read your posts, and u know wat I found ?
Your reply on 16th Jan 216 am
They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
U are AGAIN, putting words into my mouth. Which is the norm. Quesionts to me, are NOT TRUTH. They are Explaination, evidence to the TRUTH. Simple. But if you mean Truths to support facts and evidence, YES, i can accept that. Because like i said, the meaning of truth can be used in many many meanings. I am fully able to comprehend. I never said they are not truth AGAIN, i just said science is the How and Why to the Truth. Simple. I NEVER said Science is a search of truth. It CAN find TRUTH in previous statements, but its the How and Why to the Truth. I expect u to be playing with words in this reply. Since u accuse me, well, lets play with words.
Your reply on 16th Jan 1119 am
They stated the TRUTH about gravity in regards to it being 9.81ms2, not because gravity is the TRUTH. I am rejecting the original sentence but not rephrasing it, because that is how u properly state the science and its relevence to the truth and fact. But Science is not TRUTH. U get it ?
Your reply on16 Jan 1155am
Science EXPLAINS WHY... it doesnt state the TRUTH.
Your reply on 16 Jan 1159am
I agree that Science EXPLAINS it,and its about WHY and HOW , not the TRUTH .
your reply on 16th jan 1225
I understand where you are coming from with Science = Truth and Fact. Cause that is what you are saying. My understanding of Science = How and Why. To sum it up in the most simplistic manner.
Theologions like Scientists can be both be equally wrong. So If they can be wrong, i cant accept that its Truth. U see .
your reply on 16 jan 1225
But the How and Why are only explained with our current technology and intelligence. Because TRUTH is not what science does. And if they can be wrong, then Science is NOT TRUTH and FACTS .
Science to me is How and Why and is not the Truth.
16th Jan 211pm
Are u guys so dense ? All i am saying is Science is not TRUTH. Whats so hard to understand ?
17th Jan 552pm
All i am saying is, Science.. IS NOT TRUTH
After so many replies clearly saying science is not truth, now u go one round and say it could be truth ?
Science is still based on Theories. So therefore i cannot accept it to be the TRUTH, because it makes mistakes. Simple. Theologians, they try to find the Truth of the Existence of God. How they go about it, whether they succeed or not, its THIER PORBLEM.
Wa lao.. u r using my phrase here man... U just omit out science here. Well theologist is also based on theories, and they make tons of mistakes too. They even state their god arrives (moonies and other cults) Why is theologist truth while science not truth ? Science also search for truth here. They may fail but they r searching for truth, not falsehood.
I chose a list of the meanings from the dictionary, because previously, those that do not understand needed a definition from the dictionary which they could understand, so i chose the closest to it. As for science, its the same, however, there is no other definition close to it. So i do not accept it. Simple. I am not limited to the meaning of the dictionary alone.
So u do not accept the definition of science from the dictionary ? U want to think out of the box here again ? Then I think u have a communication problem. U keep finding faults with english words and want to redefine it so much tat nobody understand u. Why don't u say u have a problem with the definition of the word "stupid" and then say u r stupid, but actually u wanna say u r smart ?
All i said is that certain theories postulated by them, might NOT BE TRUE. Thats it. Since when did i say anything remotely to the meaning of "Science is a lie, its not true...etc"
U again make another stupid statement. U first stated tat stated theories of science might not be true. Then u charge at me blaming me for saying tat u did not say anything remotely meaning tat science is not true ? Isn't your first statement already evidence tat u r implying science is not true ?
And I have said tis before, which u clearly miss out, tat if a certain hypothesis is not truth, then it could only be false. On the above u said many instances where u claim science is not truth. IF it is not truth, then it could only be false/lie.
ooh.. i guess you make mistakes too. And i NEVER said 1+1 = 2 is also truth no matter what happedn. I said its TRUE, but NOT the TRUTH.
Well see your reply on 18 jan 1253
Mathematically 1 + 1 = 2 is a true and a truth.
on 18th jan 106am
1 + 1 in a mathematical term is true.. is the truth. I agree.
U see, u lie so often, contradict yourself so much tat u did not even check yourself !
Once again, i paste the Article, is that Truth cannot be so simply defined. SIMPLE.
And then surprisingly, your only answer for wat "truth" is to u is simply "actual existence". I asked countless times and the only answer I get is still "actual existence". If tat cannot be so simply defined, why u defined it as such ?
All i said is, logically it SHOULD be NOTHING. In maths u cant.
U see, I have been saying tat logically, it is not ZERO. Only idiots reach tis logical conclusion. Can u even tell me wat is the meaning of dividing zero ? I bet u can't because even mathematician etc cannot interprete the meaing of dividing by zero.
And furthermore, I did not shut up on the 0/0 is from 0 to infinity. Tat point still stands. Undefine means u cannot pin point the exact answer to it. And the answer I give is it could be any number in the whole number series.So where is the error in it ? Tell me which part of the answer I said is wrong
So now the ball is in your court now. And again u have shown so many mistakes and signs tat u contradict yourself, lies often, flip flop on stand and is really a loser. Come, come... I await your reply
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Well tis is getting more and more exciting by the minute. Lets go
First, let me start off by showing how many lies u have sprouted
Well I read your posts, and u know wat I found ?
Your reply on 16th Jan 216 am
They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
Your reply on 16th Jan 1119 am
They stated the TRUTH about gravity in regards to it being 9.81ms2, not because gravity is the TRUTH. I am rejecting the original sentence but not rephrasing it, because that is how u properly state the science and its relevence to the truth and fact. But Science is not TRUTH. U get it ?
Your reply on16 Jan 1155am
Science EXPLAINS WHY... it doesnt state the TRUTH.
Your reply on 16 Jan 1159am
I agree that Science EXPLAINS it,and its about WHY and HOW , not the TRUTH .
your reply on 16th jan 1225
I understand where you are coming from with Science = Truth and Fact. Cause that is what you are saying. My understanding of Science = How and Why. To sum it up in the most simplistic manner.
Theologions like Scientists can be both be equally wrong. So If they can be wrong, i cant accept that its Truth. U see .
your reply on 16 jan 1225
But the How and Why are only explained with our current technology and intelligence. Because TRUTH is not what science does. And if they can be wrong, then Science is NOT TRUTH and FACTS .
Science to me is How and Why and is not the Truth.
16th Jan 211pm
Are u guys so dense ? All i am saying is Science is not TRUTH. Whats so hard to understand ?
17th Jan 552pm
All i am saying is, Science.. IS NOT TRUTH
After so many replies clearly saying science is not truth, now u go one round and say it could be truth ?
Wa lao.. u r using my phrase here man... U just omit out science here. Well theologist is also based on theories, and they make tons of mistakes too. They even state their god arrives (moonies and other cults) Why is theologist truth while science not truth ? Science also search for truth here. They may fail but they r searching for truth, not falsehood.
So u do not accept the definition of science from the dictionary ? U want to think out of the box here again ? Then I think u have a communication problem. U keep finding faults with english words and want to redefine it so much tat nobody understand u. Why don't u say u have a problem with the definition of the word "stupid" and then say u r stupid, but actually u wanna say u r smart ?
U again make another stupid statement. U first stated tat stated theories of science might not be true. Then u charge at me blaming me for saying tat u did not say anything remotely meaning tat science is not true ? Isn't your first statement already evidence tat u r implying science is not true ?
And I have said tis before, which u clearly miss out, tat if a certain hypothesis is not truth, then it could only be false. On the above u said many instances where u claim science is not truth. IF it is not truth, then it could only be false/lie.
Well see your reply on 18 jan 1253
Mathematically 1 + 1 = 2 is a true and a truth.
on 18th jan 106am
1 + 1 in a mathematical term is true.. is the truth. I agree.
U see, u lie so often, contradict yourself so much tat u did not even check yourself !
And then surprisingly, your only answer for wat "truth" is to u is simply "actual existence". I asked countless times and the only answer I get is still "actual existence". If tat cannot be so simply defined, why u defined it as such ?
U see, I have been saying tat logically, it is not ZERO. Only idiots reach tis logical conclusion. Can u even tell me wat is the meaning of dividing zero ? I bet u can't because even mathematician etc cannot interprete the meaing of dividing by zero.
And furthermore, I did not shut up on the 0/0 is from 0 to infinity. Tat point still stands. Undefine means u cannot pin point the exact answer to it. And the answer I give is it could be any number in the whole number series.So where is the error in it ? Tell me which part of the answer I said is wrong
So now the ball is in your court now. And again u have shown so many mistakes and signs tat u contradict yourself, lies often, flip flop on stand and is really a loser. Come, come... I await your reply
Alright , Science dont NEED to state the Truth. And yes, science CAN state the truth, its still looking for the How and Why, on the way finds a truth, good for them. Its perfectly clear where i stand regarding its ability to find a truth in the process of the How and Why. But, its true, u dont hear them say TRUTH of FACT of gravity. Yes, garvity is Truth, and the Phenomenon is explained by scientists using Theories. Which may be wrong.
Theologions like Scientists can be both be equally wrong. So If they can be wrong, i cant accept that its Truth. U see . - Yup, i cant accept them as always the Truth. They may have True statements ofr now , but which might be proven wrong later.
What using your phrase ? I tot i said that long time ago already.I never said its Truth for Theologians. They already know the existence of God as Truth, they are just trying to find the existence of that Truth. If they happen to find it, good for them. If they are wrong, then, they are wrong.
Very simple, the english language evolve everyday, we use to say Fishes, for plural, now we say Fish. Its proven that language change and stuff like that. Just because one dictionary, science says like that, i may disagree with some, and agree with others. This is what u call, THINKING, like a book. If i take a book, like something, a theory, i may support it or i may not support it. Thinking for yourself. Simple. Dictionary is just a term. I fully understand the word stupid. And you are stupid. I agree wih the term they say stupid for the moment in the dictionary.
Simple, i said theories postulated by Science may not be TRUE , it doesnt say its NOT TRUE. U understand the word, MAY NOT ? Did i say , SCIENCE IS NOT TRUE ? NO. Simple.
Once again, Science is never about Truth, thats why i never view science as Truth. Thats why i have no problem accepting that Science sometimes is wrong. And that doesnt mean that its ALL LIES. Clearly not. U are the one saying it. Not me.
Whats the problem with 1+ 1 = 2 as a mathematical Truth and its True ? What the contradiction ? Both is 1 + 1= 2 a Mathematical Truth. What lies ?
Actual Existence ? Once again, its examples. Because i believe its very simple for me, u are the one limiting it, Intellectuals and Philosophers may think its difficult to define, i agree it CAN be. But i chose one that is remotely close to my definition of the Truth, and it is Actual Existence. Its that simple to me.
(Zero(which is nothing) divides by Zero(Which is nothing) = 0(zero)(Nothing) in logica, but in Maths , it cant be defined. I had to do it in such a simply manner, in case u cant comprehend. Which i have proven, u dont, even with that kind of example.
"And furthermore, I did not shut up on the 0/0 is from 0 to infinity. Tat point still stands. Undefine means u cannot pin point the exact answer to it(WRONG). And the answer I give is it could be any number in the whole number series(WRONG AGAIN).So where is the error in it ? Tell me which part of the answer I said is wrong" -THE WHOLE THING. AGAIN u are wrong all the way. Its UNDEFINED. If u define it, then , therefore, like my equations , 1 = 2 , fallacy. Undefined Means, u cannot explain it. If u think u can, with any kind of value, game over. In anyway Zero(0) to Infinity IS STILL WRONG. Based on YOUR rule, it can never reach 0 anyways. U are already wrong.
So before u accuse someone of no understanding basic maths, please, get your facts right. Or u will look AS stupid.
Unlike you, i do not take pleasure in such meaningless things, such endeavour, to me, i am just making u undrstand my points. U have mistakes, like plenty, but i take it as it is. I let point out my mistakes.
-
First it is obvious u have to apologise for framing me
1)So, once again, u are being an ass and a stupid person. U said the below
If u read my posts, u will realise that, gravity is truth. I already said it.
Now I PROVED u did said tat gravity is not truth, and u change your stand completely again. The evidnece is below
i cant accept that its Truth. U see . - Yup, i cant accept them as always the Truth.
Wat the hell ??! Wat is your stand ? FIrst u say u did nto treat it as truth, then u say u treat it as truth, then u flip flop again and say it is not truth ? Do u even know wat u r actually thinking of ? R u lying, stupid or have no integrity ? U keep contradicitng yourself and shifting your position !
2) Next u challenge me to show u the below
I never said they are not truth AGAIN, i just said science is the How and Why to the Truth.
And again I prove tat u did say science is not truth by the following:
Theologions like Scientists can be both be equally wrong. So If they can be wrong, i cant accept that its Truth. U see .
And if they can be wrong, then Science is NOT TRUTH and FACTS .
And wat is your reply to the above ? NOTHING ! U again flop flop, changed your stand consistently and yet dare to challenge people to prove u wrong ! Don't u think u should apologise for framing me for mis-quoting u ? U forgot wat u had written personally ! Wat an idiot
3)
What using your phrase ? I tot i said that long time ago already.I never said its Truth for Theologians. They already know the existence of God as Truth, they are just trying to find the existence of that Truth. If they happen to find it, good for them. If they are wrong, then, they are wrong.
Then wat is the diff with scientist ? U keep repeating the same statements but the fact is u cannot give a difference with respect to scientist ! Scientist also find truth to, let say photon. They already know the existence of photon as truth, and they r just trying to find the existence of tat truth. If they find it, good for them. If they are wrong, then they are wrong. So wat is the diff ?
4)
Very simple, the english language evolve everyday, we use to say Fishes, for plural, now we say Fish. Its proven that language change and stuff like that. Just because one dictionary, science says like that, i may disagree with some, and agree with others. This is what u call, THINKING, like a book. If i take a book, like something, a theory, i may support it or i may not support it. Thinking for yourself. Simple. Dictionary is just a term. I fully understand the word stupid. And you are stupid. I agree wih the term they say stupid for the moment in the dictionary.
U stop talking cock la ! Wat I said still stand.
U cannot accept the definition of the science from the dictionary.
And the reason is simply because, it uses truth inside and tat shatter all your stupid response saying science is not truth. I didn't write the dictinary. But now u r actually saying the people who wrote the dictionary is kinda outdated. Wat makes u think tat definition is wrong ? Who r u ? Why do u think only u can define the words ? Based on wat can u conclude tat the definition of science is wrong ? Wat makes u think u understand truth more than the english professors who standardise English ?
5)
Simple, i said theories postulated by Science may not be TRUE , it doesnt say its NOT TRUE. U understand the word, MAY NOT ? Did i say , SCIENCE IS NOT TRUE ? NO. Simple.
I asked u to read the above series of things u said about science not being the truth, did u even read it ?
Science is NOT TRUTH and FACTS .
So If they can be wrong, i cant accept that its Truth
Isn't tat u already saying science is not true ?
Let me ask u a question, if a theory is not the truth, can it even be true ?
6)
Science is never about Truth, thats why i never view science as Truth.
Again u come out with contradictory statements again !
Then why u said
I never said they are not truth AGAIN, i just said science is the How and Why to the Truth. Simple. I NEVER said Science is a search of truth. It CAN find TRUTH in previous statements, but its the How and Why to the Truth.
Now u said, science is NEVER about the truth ? U know wat is the meaning of never ? Again u r just talking cock la !
7)
What the contradiction ? Both is 1 + 1= 2 a Mathematical Truth. What lies ?
Tis is again another stupid thing u said. In the previous reply, u challenge me in
ooh.. i guess you make mistakes too. And i NEVER said 1+1 = 2 is also truth no matter what happedn. I said its TRUE, but NOT the TRUTH.
I PROVED to u tat u had said
your reply on 18 jan 1253
Mathematically 1 + 1 = 2 is a true and a truth.
on 18th jan 106am
1 + 1 in a mathematical term is true.. is the truth. I agree.
SO wat ? R u contradicting yourself again ? Do u change your stand so often tat u even forget and dare to challenge people about it ? I was hoping u could be better but u keep shooting yourself by offering contradictory statements and even dare to challenge people about it.
8)
Intellectuals and Philosophers may think its difficult to define, i agree it CAN be. But i chose one that is remotely close to my definition of the Truth, and it is Actual Existence.
U don't talk cock here la !In your article, EVERYBODY manage to describe their truth in words. EVERYBODY manage to define their truth. But u can't ! U can only choose one "remotely close" to your definition. Why ? U r grammatically handicapped ? U do not know how to communicate your thinking ? U cannot put it into words ? Or u don;t really have any idea on your truth ?
9)
Zero(which is nothing) divides by Zero(Which is nothing) = 0(zero)(Nothing) in logica
Rubbish la ! Wat do u mean by dividing by zero ? Why don't u tell me wat is physically dividing by zero means in "logica" ? Wat is divide by nothing ? If u can;t explain, then obviously u have no logic ! Then your stupid conclusion is illogical !
10)
THE WHOLE THING. AGAIN u are wrong all the way. Its UNDEFINED. If u define it, then , therefore, like my equations , 1 = 2 , fallacy.
Wrong ? Wat crap r u really talking about ? If u talk about your stupid equation
0/0 * 1= 0/0 * 2, since 0/0 can be anything, it can be 2 in the first case and the second set of 0/0 can be 1 in this case, and the result is 2=2 which is right.
So where is the problem with my definition ?
Based on YOUR rule, it can never reach 0 anyways. U are already wrong.
Who says so ? 0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right. U really need to understand the meaning of "undefine". U can't define it, it can be anything. And in maths, it is not useful since there r infinite possibility.
I think u should get your facts right before posting anything about maths here.
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
First it is obvious u have to apologise for framing me
1)So, once again, u are being an ass and a stupid person. U said the below
If u read my posts, u will realise that, gravity is truth. I already said it.
Now I PROVED u did said tat gravity is not truth, and u change your stand completely again. The evidnece is below
i cant accept that its Truth. U see . - Yup, i cant accept them as always the Truth.
Wat the hell ??! Wat is your stand ? FIrst u say u did nto treat it as truth, then u say u treat it as truth, then u flip flop again and say it is not truth ? Do u even know wat u r actually thinking of ? R u lying, stupid or have no integrity ? U keep contradicitng yourself and shifting your position !
2) Next u challenge me to show u the below
I never said they are not truth AGAIN, i just said science is the How and Why to the Truth.
And again I prove tat u did say science is not truth by the following:
Theologions like Scientists can be both be equally wrong. So If they can be wrong, i cant accept that its Truth. U see .
And if they can be wrong, then Science is NOT TRUTH and FACTS .
And wat is your reply to the above ? NOTHING ! U again flop flop, changed your stand consistently and yet dare to challenge people to prove u wrong ! Don't u think u should apologise for framing me for mis-quoting u ? U forgot wat u had written personally ! Wat an idiot
3)
Then wat is the diff with scientist ? U keep repeating the same statements but the fact is u cannot give a difference with respect to scientist ! Scientist also find truth to, let say photon. They already know the existence of photon as truth, and they r just trying to find the existence of tat truth. If they find it, good for them. If they are wrong, then they are wrong. So wat is the diff ?
4)
U stop talking cock la ! Wat I said still stand.
U cannot accept the definition of the science from the dictionary.
And the reason is simply because, it uses truth inside and tat shatter all your stupid response saying science is not truth. I didn't write the dictinary. But now u r actually saying the people who wrote the dictionary is kinda outdated. Wat makes u think tat definition is wrong ? Who r u ? Why do u think only u can define the words ? Based on wat can u conclude tat the definition of science is wrong ? Wat makes u think u understand truth more than the english professors who standardise English ?
5)
I asked u to read the above series of things u said about science not being the truth, did u even read it ?
Science is NOT TRUTH and FACTS .
So If they can be wrong, i cant accept that its Truth
Isn't tat u already saying science is not true ?
Let me ask u a question, if a theory is not the truth, can it even be true ?
6)
Again u come out with contradictory statements again !
Then why u said
Now u said, science is NEVER about the truth ? U know wat is the meaning of never ? Again u r just talking cock la !
7)
Tis is again another stupid thing u said. In the previous reply, u challenge me in
ooh.. i guess you make mistakes too. And i NEVER said 1+1 = 2 is also truth no matter what happedn. I said its TRUE, but NOT the TRUTH.
I PROVED to u tat u had said
your reply on 18 jan 1253
Mathematically 1 + 1 = 2 is a true and a truth.
on 18th jan 106am
1 + 1 in a mathematical term is true.. is the truth. I agree.
SO wat ? R u contradicting yourself again ? Do u change your stand so often tat u even forget and dare to challenge people about it ? I was hoping u could be better but u keep shooting yourself by offering contradictory statements and even dare to challenge people about it.
8)
U don't talk cock here la !In your article, EVERYBODY manage to describe their truth in words. EVERYBODY manage to define their truth. But u can't ! U can only choose one "remotely close" to your definition. Why ? U r grammatically handicapped ? U do not know how to communicate your thinking ? U cannot put it into words ? Or u don;t really have any idea on your truth ?
9)
Rubbish la ! Wat do u mean by dividing by zero ? Why don't u tell me wat is physically dividing by zero means in "logica" ? Wat is divide by nothing ? If u can;t explain, then obviously u have no logic ! Then your stupid conclusion is illogical !
10)
Wrong ? Wat crap r u really talking about ? If u talk about your stupid equation
0/0 * 1= 0/0 * 2, since 0/0 can be anything, it can be 2 in the first case and the second set of 0/0 can be 1 in this case, and the result is 2=2 which is right.
So where is the problem with my definition ?
Who says so ? 0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right. U really need to understand the meaning of "undefine". U can't define it, it can be anything. And in maths, it is not useful since there r infinite possibility.
I think u should get your facts right before posting anything about maths here.
Oh. now i have to apologise for FRAMING YOU ? lol. How about YOU apologise for framing MY ass. Just admit it man, admit your mistakes, its not like you are faultless. Just because i overlook and dont quote you doesnt mean u have NONE to admit. Be a man. Just man up, i admit my mistakes, but u dont. Thats the difference between you and me.
I understand its hard for you to admit u may be wrong sometimes, i agree, i find it very hard to , sometimes, but u cant be always right. Lets face it, so far u have always thought u were so smart, but thats not always the case.
So where did i say Gravity is NOT truth ? Where ? Stop cutting and pasting bullshit man... u dont have to go THAT LOW.
Come on, i said SCIENCE IS NOT TRUTH because it may be TRUE but NOT THE TRUTH. THAT IS IN REFERENCE TO THAT STATEMENT. NOT SCIENCE ITSELF.
U can cut n paste, but at least cut and paste the WHOLE THING.
PLEASE READ ALL POST "And if they can be wrong, then Science is NOT TRUTH and FACTS ." - Even if Science is not the truth, it doesnt need to be WRONG all the time.. Basically, it cant be the TRUTH because it makes mistakes, and Facts can BE wrong too. Because it its not the Truth, as it can be wrong. SO i cant accept it as the Truth !
Yes, i cant accept the definition of Science in the dictionary. Simple. IF u think i am talking cock, feel free and believe it so. I got no problem believeing u are a moron. So i got no problem to u saying i am talking cock. We are entitled to our own opinions.
1 + 1 = 2 IS true and a truth ! N i explained it in the next post as its mathematical truth. Whats the lies ? So smart at nitpicking and identifying fault, suddenly u become so dumb, and stupid that u did not know i mean Mathematical Truth ? I EVEN REPLIED A SECOND TIME TO REINFORCE IT! 1 + 1 = 2 Is a mathematical truth, is true and a truth, but it is true, but not the truth in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. I have already said in previous post
Ur nitpicking ... again, shows how desperate u are, at trying to reword and rephrase my sentences, if u want, please cute n paste the WHOLE THING.
If Philosophers and Intellectuals can describe in words , well good for them.Thats why i read and get better understanding. Is it WRONG, to think otherwise ? Once again, i am thinking OUT OF THE SQUARE. You just want me to think IN THE SQUARE like the rest of yous. Which i refuse to. Just because THEY can describe it, doesnt mean i HAVE to ? I HAVE a mind on my own, i am still in the process fo acquiring MORE knowledge ? Did u think all these just popped out overnight.
Logicall speaking , NOTHING divindes by NOTHING = NOTHING. Obviously, u didnt read it, or just too stupid. I can feel ur frustration in this post. Take a chill pill. U see, logically, we CAN define it, but Maths cant. Its Undefined, using simple algebra it can be proven that its fallable based on my equation of 1 = 2
"0/0 * 1= 0/0 * 2, since 0/0 can be anything, it can be 2 in the first case and the second set of 0/0 can be 1 in this case, and the result is 2=2 which is right."
Are u fucking kidding me ? U ARE OBVIOUSLY STUPID ! If u substitute 0/0 = 1, U MUST APPLY IT TO ALL EQUATION. Jeeezez. If u have one side X = 1 , u cant have another side X = 2 . U ARE a MORON! OMFG! No wonder u CANT UNDERSTAND ! Assume 0/0 = x if X = 1, how can X = 1 on this side and X =2 on the other side ? It will be Y !
I HOPE YOU ARE NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER , or YOUR BUILDINGS WILL COME CRASHING DOWN.
Who says so ? 0/0 * 0 = 0/0 * infinity. Since 0/0 can be anything, the first set of 0/0 could be 1 while the second set could be 0, then it still come to the conclusion tat 0= 0 which is again right. U really need to understand the meaning of "undefine". U can't define it, it can be anything. And in maths, it is not useful since there r infinite possibility.
Are u fucking kidding me ? U ARE OBVIOUSLY STUPID ! If u substitute 0/0 = 1, U MUST APPLY IT TO ALL EQUATION. Jeeezez. If u have one side X = 1 , u cant have another side X = 2 . U ARE a MORON! OMFG! No wonder u CANT UNDERSTAND ! Assume 0/0 = x if X = 1, how can X = 1 on this side and X =2 on the other side ? It will be Y !
I HOPE YOU ARE NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER , or YOUR BUILDINGS WILL COME CRASHING DOWN.
AGAIN!UNLESS ITS A DIFFERENT EQUATION. No.. let me guess, u may think one side is a different equation and the other side is another different equation, BUT IT STILL BELONGS TO THE SAME EQUATION.
FARK! And u tell me know my maths ? I AM LOLLING MY ASSS OFFF MAN!I guess this is the ULTIMATE EVIDENCE to SUPPORT MY THEORY OF UR STUPIDITY !
Please refer to top post and read again. And u are telling me i am redefining the meaning of Truth while u are redefining maths here...
-
it is amazing how huge a stamina people can have.
Hi stupidissmart, you can forget about arguing with Badzmaro. No point going on.
His definition of truth only applies to his thinking. Let him live in an island of his own.
laffin
-
Originally posted by laffin123:
it is amazing how huge a stamina people can have.
Hi stupidissmart, you can forget about arguing with Badzmaro. No point going on.
His definition of truth only applies to his thinking. Let him live in an island of his own.
laffin
WELL DONE.
I totally agree with you. U totally understand that i have a MIND OF MY OWN.
lol
And u guys are here trying to put and force feed YOUR definition into MY beliefs. OF COURSE ITS NOT GOING TO WORK ! And trying to apply MY beliefs into yours aint gonna work too!
All i ask is understanding, while i totally understand where u guys are coming from. Is it so hard ?
*bravo bravo* clap clap.
U deserve a P -Member. Do u want to recieve the gift ?
-
i say we ban badzmaro!~!
-
lol... dont ban me because i live in my own ivory tower .. my P-member until 2017 k.
)Can ban me when i no longer P-member.
MmmMm.. maybe i could volunteer to be Mod here. Doing volunteering work, is just so fullfilling.
-
Oh. now i have to apologise for FRAMING YOU ? lol. How about YOU apologise for framing MY ass. Just admit it man, admit your mistakes, its not like you are faultless. Just because i overlook and dont quote you doesnt mean u have NONE to admit. Be a man. Just man up, i admit my mistakes, but u dont. Thats the difference between you and me.
Let me see... so u r talking about the portion
U even claimed tat science could not Again tis is not truth.
Ok lor. U r right. It seems to have been pasted in the wrong place. Then ?
So where did i say Gravity is NOT truth ? Where ? Stop cutting and pasting bullshit man... u dont have to go THAT LOW.
Bullsh!t ? Tat is wat u WROTE. U asked me "where did i say Gravity is NOT truth ?". The only way is to show the rubbish u had written In tis case, it is
They are theories and theories can be right and can be proven wrong like newtonian laws that only works on earth. U dont call it the FACT of Gravity..U never hear Scientists call theory.. the truth right ?
Tat is wat u wrote on the 16th Jan 216 am. U can go and refer to it.
Come on, i said SCIENCE IS NOT TRUTH because it may be TRUE but NOT THE TRUTH. THAT IS IN REFERENCE TO THAT STATEMENT. NOT SCIENCE ITSELF.
I asked u tis question before. If something is not the truth, can it be true ? Wat is your answer to tis ?
Yes, i cant accept the definition of Science in the dictionary. Simple. IF u think i am talking cock, feel free and believe it so.
Hoho.. So u think u r more qualified than the people writing english dictionary and just blatantly refuse to accept it. Yup I think u r talking cock and I am gonna let everybody know about it.
1 + 1 = 2 IS true and a truth ! N i explained it in the next post as its mathematical truth. Whats the lies ? So smart at nitpicking and identifying fault, suddenly u become so dumb, and stupid that u did not know i mean Mathematical Truth ? I EVEN REPLIED A SECOND TIME TO REINFORCE IT! 1 + 1 = 2 Is a mathematical truth, is true and a truth, but it is true, but not the truth in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. I have already said in previous post
U know wat is the lie ? Previously u challenge me in the below
24th Jan 1011
And i NEVER said 1+1 = 2 is also truth no matter what happedn. I said its TRUE, but NOT the TRUTH. See... again, putting words into my mouth.
But then u said
on 18 jan 1253
Mathematically 1 + 1 = 2 is a true and a truth.
on 18th jan 106am
1 + 1 in a mathematical term is true.. is the truth. I agree.
SO now u r arguing MAthmatical Truth is not the truth ? Isn't "mathematic truth", a truth in the field of mathematics ? Is a dark horse a horse ? Your stupidity has shine out again
If Philosophers and Intellectuals can describe in words , well good for them.Thats why i read and get better understanding. Is it WRONG, to think otherwise ? Once again, i am thinking OUT OF THE SQUARE. You just want me to think IN THE SQUARE like the rest of yous. Which i refuse to. Just because THEY can describe it, doesnt mean i HAVE to ? I HAVE a mind on my own, i am still in the process fo acquiring MORE knowledge ? Did u think all these just popped out overnight.
So now u r saying, u do not know how to define it in words. And the reason is, u think out of the box ? Wat is the link between the two ? There r tons of people who think out of the box and can still communicate their idea ! So in reality, u probably r just too stupid to describe it in words or too coward to make a stand
Logicall speaking , NOTHING divindes by NOTHING = NOTHING
I have asked so many times before. Wat does divide by nothing means ? U just have no logic to even understand such a simple statement
Are u fucking kidding me ? U ARE OBVIOUSLY STUPID ! If u substitute 0/0 = 1, U MUST APPLY IT TO ALL EQUATION. Jeeezez. If u have one side X = 1 , u cant have another side X = 2 . U ARE a MORON! OMFG! No wonder u CANT UNDERSTAND ! Assume 0/0 = x if X = 1, how can X = 1 on this side and X =2 on the other side ? It will be Y !
Huh ? I think u r the stupid one around here ! U says substituting values into 0/0, is only true if u r talking about a DEFINED VARIABLE/UNKNOWN. But we r dealing with a UNDEFINED value. Did u really pass your maths or something ? Do u even know "X", the one used in algebra/solving equation is a VARIABLE, NOT UNDEFINED value ! If we substitute a value inside, since it is DEFINED, it is the same on both sides
But An UNDEFINED value could be anything ! It could be 1 on one side and 1000 on the other side etc. IT COULD BE ANYTHING and it doesn't have to be the same !
Why don't u define wat is "undefined" in maths ? Then u will know wat a stupid thing u said
-
So let me write some of the stupidest thing badzmaro said
1) His only definition of truth comes from the dictionary, but he cannot accept the description of "science" (body of truth) from the dictionary. Somehow he thinks he is mroe qualified than the english professors in writing english words
2) When it was shown to him tat even in his article, philosophers all can communicate their idea of truth in words, he still refuse to define his meaning of truth. And the reason is, because he "think" out of the box and thus unable to use english
3) He keep saying "It's true but not the truth". To me tat sentence is grammatically wrong. If it is not the truth, how can it be true ?
4) He said Mathematical Truth is not Truth. Basic english user can know tat mathematics is an adjective here and thus the noun is still "truth". In fact u can read dictionary.com and it states
math⋅e⋅mat⋅i⋅cal
–adjective
of, pertaining to, or of the nature of mathematics: example mathematical truth.
o Another stupid use of language by him
5) He made a lot of contradictions. He said gravity is not truth, then say it is truth before finally saying it is not truth again. He also said only theologist can come out with truth, then he says he cannot accept it as truth then he twist again and theologist can come out with truth too
6) He said 0 divide by 0 should be logically zero. However when asked wat is the meaning of dividing by zero, he refuse to answer. Lets see wat the experts said about dividing by zero
"There is no way to distribute 10 apples amongst 0 people. In mathematical jargon, a set of 10 items cannot be partitioned into 0 subsets. So
, at least in elementary arithmetic, is said to be meaningless, or undefined."So it really tells how logical he is
7) When u used the definition of truth = "actual existence" into applications of science such as water cycle, or strength of material, or mechanics etc, they r actual reality and they fit the description of "truth". However he just say they r just WHY and HOW and, I do not know why, becomes not truth. Can anyone else understand tis crap ?
8) And u also came out with another rubbbish statement 1+1=2 is not truth. U said 1+1=2 is not the truth and u came out with examples of eggs and sperms and apples and oranges. U claim 1 apple + 1 orange not equal to 2 apples. Isn't tat obvious ? U use the equation wrongly. Then u say sperm + egg = 1 fertilised egg. Then again aren't u using the equation wrongly again ? R we talking about chemistry equation here ? We r talking about maths and u talk about putting garbages into the right equation to proclaim the equation wrong. Tat is nonsense
-
Both of you are equally stupid like pigs.
-
I like stupidissmart's explanation on undefined number. I don't know if it is true but it appears so.
Stupidissmart, just give up on this discussion la ! I believed badzmaro also know he is just talking rubbish but he just want to continue for the sake of saving face