Calling out Terri Schiavo

Originally posted by stocken
lol

That was an extremely amusing phrase to me, right there. 😵

Thanks! It just seemed a reasonable idea to impress upon LH exactly what miracle the frog would need!

Originally posted by no1marauder
That statement is simply ironic from a "see no evil" propagandist for an institution responsible for a myriad of atrocities.

LOL!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Thanks! It just seemed a reasonable idea to impress upon LH exactly what miracle the frog would need!

My question is - would the frog need a miracle at all?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No. A frog jumping from Earth to Jupiter in a single bound does not entail a logical contradiction, but the probability that such an event will occur is 0, because it entails a violation of the physical laws of the universe.

Actually, yes.

You neglect to take into account the fact that your certainty that particular physical laws will always obtain can never quite each 100%, but can can merely asymptotically approach it. This is the consequence of your being a fallible human being who must rely on probabilistic inference about empirical reality. So, given that a very small uncertainty must remain about whether particular physical laws will always obtain, there must by extension remain a very small uncertainty about whether events that such laws prohibit--such as a frog jumping from Earth to Jupiter in a single bound--will never take place.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Actually, yes.

You neglect to take into account the fact that your certainty that particular physical laws will always obtain can never quite each 100%, but can can merely asymptotically approach it. This is the consequence of your being a fallible human being who must rely on probabilistic inference about empirical reality. So, given that a very sm ...[text shortened]... prohibit--such as a frog jumping from Earth to Jupiter in a single bound--will never take place.

Thank you - that's what I've been trying to say.

Originally posted by Halitose
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/ 😕

the woman halfway down that webpage has really nice breasts. with a chest like that i just might start going to church

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In QM, I think the answer would be - no.

The Bible claims that the sun once stood still above Jericho. Is the Bible wrong on this point?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole

You neglect to take into account the fact that your certainty that particular physical laws will always obtain can never quite each 100%, but can can merely asymptotically approach it.

Accurate probabilistic assessments do not require certainty. If they did, then the whole science of probability would be pointless as it would have no application in reality. Clearly accurate probabilisitc descriptions and predictions about the universe are made, so it must be that they do not rely on certainty. All they rely on is the incorporation of all available information, which does not include skeptical musings.

Based on all information available to me, I maintain that frogs jump from Earth to Jupiter with probability 0. This claim does not preclude me from entertaining the skeptical ideas that perhaps frogs are much stronger than they appear, or that the earth's escape velocity is much lower than it appears, or in general, that the universe isn't as the available information, from which alone probabilities are derived, depicts it.

Originally posted by Halitose
IIRC she was in a coma, not brain dead. Btw, I agree with the definition of death being the irreversible cessation of brain activity.

Your recollection is incorrect. She was in a prolonged 'persistant
vegetative state.' As a result of her seizure, blood going to certain
parts of the brain -- in this case, the vast majority of the cerebrum --
was cut off. Over the many years without blood, the brain tissue
atrophied and, subsequently, disappeared. In its place was basically
fluid.

Because she still had (part?) of her cerebellum and all of her medula
oblongata, she still had basic reaction to stimuli that Scott mentioned,
but it was autonomic, not conscious (because all of the brain that
contributed to her capacity for consciousness was gone).

She was not brain dead in a clinical sense because her 'lower brain'
was still functional. However, all of the brain that made her 'Terri' was
long dead and literally gone. As a consequence, her husband as the
executor of her wishes felt it appropriate to discontinue the support of
her body since all of that parts of her brain that made her 'Terri' was
deceased.

Does this clear it up for you?

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The Bible claims that the sun once stood still above Jericho. Is the Bible wrong on this point?

Careful. That event occured in the aftermath of the Battle of Gibeon in "the valley of Aijalon." (See Joshua 10).

The Battle of Gibeon occurred after the Battle of Jericho, where the Israelites marched around the Great Walls of Jericho once each day for six days and then marched around the walls seven times all the while blowing trumpets on the seventh day. On the last time around, they let off a mighty trumpet blast and all the israelites shouted. The walls fell down, and the Israelites rushed in and did what pleases their bloodthirsty god: they "destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."
(See Joshua 6)

Originally posted by telerion
Careful. That event occured in the aftermath of the Battle of Gibeon in "the valley of Aijalon." (See Joshua 10).

The Battle of Gibeon occurred after the Battle of Jericho, where the Israelites marched around the Great Walls of Jericho once each day for six days and then marched around the walls seven times all the while blowing trumpets on the seventh ...[text shortened]... living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys."
(See Joshua 6)

I can see the men, women and children and even the sheep and cattle, but donkeys are soooooooooo funny! Why would almighty Jehovah want to wipe out an animal that He knew was destined to be so hilarious in Shrek?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, it doesn't. I'm sure there is a solution to a wave-function with an amplitude equal to the distance between Earth and Jupiter.

right after I get back from Jupiter , I will wave my function at you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I can see the men, women and children and even the sheep and cattle, but donkeys are soooooooooo funny! Why would almighty Jehovah want to wipe out an animal that He knew was destined to be so hilarious in Shrek?

No sense of humor, maybe?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Accurate probabilistic assessments do not require certainty. If they did, then the whole science of probability would be pointless as it would have no application in reality. Clearly accurate probabilisitc descriptions and predictions about the universe are made, so it must be that they do not rely on certainty. All they rely on is the incorporati ...[text shortened]... se isn't as the available information, from which alone probabilities are derived, depicts it.

Plus, the frog would burn up in the atmosphere too. Unless it had some real good heat shielding....

Originally posted by frogstomp
right after I get back from Jupiter , I will wave my function at you.

There once was a curious frog
Who sat by a pond on a log
And, to see what resulted
When he catupulted
All one could see was the fog

gil