Perry want a cracker?
Oh great, now I have tea dribbling out my nose!
Nice pictures but I couldn't help thinking, theists must read really slowly.
Posts by Caedes
-
-
-
Caedes
-
106
Witchcraft - Would you use it?
by Sirona inwould you ever use witchcraft?.
do you think witchcraft is dangerous?.
do you think witchcraft is just a set of delusions based on ancient superstition?.
-
-
Caedes
Surely the point Terry is making has little to do with how the spell is made, The point is that if the effects are real then the results will be real, tangible and quantifiable.
There is equipment available to measure force at your local university, I would think anybody who truly believes in this would be willing to prove that the effects are real.
I look forward to the grounbreaking research proving the existance of previously unknown natural forces.
-
5
Any Pro JW forums?
by ThomasCovenant incould someone point out if there are any pro jw discussion forums available.
.
thomas covenant.
-
-
Caedes
You'll be needing a keyboard from these people before you hit that link
http://www.clitheroelancs.co.uk/id8.htm
vomit is so difficult to get out of a regular keyboard!
-
43
URGENT HELP: I need some help with statistics calculations - please!
by Crumpet inokay so this is for an assignment - due in at midnight tomorrow.
its a tiny part of it but the accuracy is paramount and i can't get my head around it and so if anyone can help with the math i'd be very grateful.. .
i want to show what percentage higher the gni of the uk is above france.
-
-
Caedes
In the example quoted however it makes no sense to talk about Americans using 138% more power
since the America's power use is not related directly to Russia's power use.
In order to use 138% you would have to say that America uses 138% more power than what Russia currently uses.
It makes more sense when talking about seperate quantities to use the total %age so you can say
America's power use is 238% of Russian power use, which is less misleading.
It is useful to talk about a percentage increase or decrease if you talking about a change in one statistic rather than a difference.
-
43
URGENT HELP: I need some help with statistics calculations - please!
by Crumpet inokay so this is for an assignment - due in at midnight tomorrow.
its a tiny part of it but the accuracy is paramount and i can't get my head around it and so if anyone can help with the math i'd be very grateful.. .
i want to show what percentage higher the gni of the uk is above france.
-
-
Caedes
whereas I used the 33630 crumpet also quoted!
Both these statements are correct
American use 2.38 times the energy consumption used in Russia.
Americans use 138% MORE energy than Russians.Yes, both are equally valid ways of describing the difference.
a 138% increase is the same as 238% of the original figure.
-
43
URGENT HELP: I need some help with statistics calculations - please!
by Crumpet inokay so this is for an assignment - due in at midnight tomorrow.
its a tiny part of it but the accuracy is paramount and i can't get my head around it and so if anyone can help with the math i'd be very grateful.. .
i want to show what percentage higher the gni of the uk is above france.
-
-
Caedes
As I said JH is correct in the subsequent question,
5480 x 2.3864 = 13077 so 238% is correct
Percentages do vary depending on which figure you start with.
-
37
Any Non Religious Single Women on here?
by What-A-Coincidence ini've been on dates with very nice women.
but we just don't match up in the beliefs departments.
so...any single non-religious women on here?
-
-
Caedes
Isn't there some kind of search function on this board to find the atheist posters?
Yeah, just start a thread entitled 'didnt god do a stand up job creating the universe and evolution is a rubbish theory because of shiny sports cars'
-
43
URGENT HELP: I need some help with statistics calculations - please!
by Crumpet inokay so this is for an assignment - due in at midnight tomorrow.
its a tiny part of it but the accuracy is paramount and i can't get my head around it and so if anyone can help with the math i'd be very grateful.. .
i want to show what percentage higher the gni of the uk is above france.
-
-
Caedes
JH is correct in his subsequent examples but incorrect in his original post, The correct answer is 10.73
30370 x 1.1073 = 33628 - the difference is due to rounding
Of course the other answer is correct in as much as France's figure is -9% of the UK one so it just depends on how you want to frame the answer.
Hth - they dont call it sadistics for nothing you know.
-
62
gettin a bike
by IP_SEC inim going down to cajun harley today and im not leaving without a bike.. too bad i cant fit 100 lbs of crawfish on it .
-
-
Caedes
We call them hardly movinson's over here, I understand that the throttle is replaced by some sort of volume control?
SInce they don't go any faster, they just get louder when you twist it.
-
27
"The Red Corvette" problem -- a disconnect in view points
by AlmostAtheist inin another thread, a poster brought up what he called "the red corvette" problem.
the problem, he said, is that if you are a true atheist, you must believe that a red corvette could simply form out of nothing.
if you believe life originated from nothing, then you must believe that a less-complicated machine such as a sports car could also have originated from nothing.
-
-
Caedes
- Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living cell.
- Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the first living cell.
I agree Lore, you have the entire universe as it is, as an entirely natural phenomenon or you have that same universe and you tack on some supernatural intelligence that created it all. So fundamentally you either believe in an entirely natural universe or a supernatural one. Ockham's razor should makes the choice a simple one for me.
On the subject of the "problem" of the red corvette, I think the problem is one of reading comprehension, The poster in question has consistantly failed to understand the very clear message given to him in probably every reply given. I.e that yes, abiogenesis is an area that is still not fully explained by science (there are some good hypotheses out there but nothing concrete...yet) but that no scientific theory of abiogenesis will ever suggest that red corvettes spring up out of nothing (and that hence his analogy is invalid). He also fails to grasp the concept that the big bang theory is a proven theory and rather strangely he doesn't understand that it has nothing to do with abiogenesis which has nothing to do with evolutionary theory either. His logical fallacies have been pointed out time and time again, but he just bangs on with the same old tired, circular arguments like some sort of battery bunny.
Planetary formation is a very well understood phenomenon but somehow this poster thinks that atheists believe they evolve.
You see folks, a perfectly spinning, tilted and orbiting earth did not EVOLVE, like you claim all OTHER LIFE on earth did. Neither did the atmosphere including ozone layer on earth, the water cycles, nor did the moon, sun and stars EVOLVE as you state in your explanations above
I would be very interested to see which 'textbook' this was in but I doubt we will see a reference
I have read the textbooks, have seen the arguments from scientists like Richard Dawkins
Seen? yes maybe, comprehended? Obviously not, or he might have some idea about what atheists actually believe.
I could go on but I'm worried this post may be getting a bit too long