Features

Jonathan Clement · #1

I'm gonig to make it my lifes mission to proove this is NOT what the bible teaches!

El Blanco · #2

First, before you get a life's mission, you might want to get a life.

Ass.

Jonathan Clement · #3

Aaaaaaaaaaaaass.

Emu · #4

You can't prove a negative premise. For example, you can't prove that there aren't little invisible pixies living in my left nut.

Archduke Tips · #5

I <3 Emu's testicle pixies.

AngPur · #6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emu

You can't prove a negative premise. For example, you can't prove that there aren't little invisible pixies living in my left nut.

Or that your nation doesn't possess weapo... er, you get the picture.

Actually, what's the point? The only people who follow the bible THAT closely won't be sawyed by any factual analysis, and even if you do get them to think that...

Well, they can hardly wipe their runny noses without checking to see if it's a sin. Would you really want to be an educator to suck individuals?

davinxtk · #7

Hey Clement

has anyone ever told you to fuck off and die screaming in a fire?

Spectre X · #8

God doesn't exist.

Jonathan Clement · #9

Yes he does. Just ask him.

AngPur · #10

God exists. Belgium doesn't.

Spectre X · #11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Clement

Yes he does. Just ask him.

How can I ask him if he isn't there?

Where is the logic in God existing?

There is none.

Emu · #12

There are logical reasons for believing in God's existence, but they don't necessarily apply to reality.

sadie · #13

there's a thin line between courage and stupidity, and i believe jonathan has crossed it.

kellychaos · #14

If nothing else, Christ is surely a stickler for correct spelling.

KevinTheOmnivore · #15

I think John is gonna be a great addition to the gang.

Rosenstern · #16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emu

You can't prove a negative premise. For example, you can't prove that there aren't little invisible pixies living in my left nut.

There is no number greater than zero that is a negative number.

Wow... that was pretty easy actually. Clement does need to get a life, though.

Big Papa Goat · #17

How was that a proof?

Sethomas · #18

It's actually a tautology.

Marc Summers · #19

The correct proof would be proof by induction (ya, it's hard to do for tautologies) :o

Statement: (-1)(x)<0 for all x>0 (for sanity's sake we'll just say x is also a whole number. Repeating decimals and proofs almost always do NOT mix

)
Base case: x=1. (-1)(1)<0 goes to -1<0 I would believe this to be CORRECT :D
Induction: If x is assumed to be true within the currently defined subset of x>0, x+1 must also be proven true (domino theory). So, making a blind assumption that the statement (-1)(x)<0 reducing to -x<0 is correct, then I have to show that the statement of (-1)(x+1)<0 is correct. This reduces to -x<1. Because values for x can only be positive integers, the statement -x<1 is correct. Because it's correct, it shows that for every x that is true, x+1 is also true.

Here's what I did: it's called the domino theory. I had to prove that I knocked over the first domino (x=1) and prove that every domino knocks over the domino after it (prove for every x, x+1 is also true), which pretty much covers every possibility.

MATH POWER

Marine · #20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Clement

I'm gonig to make it my lifes mission to proove this is NOT what the bible teaches!

who cares?

mburbank · #21

I'll tell you what, if I'm not goin' to hell out of this deal, I'm not playin' any more.

OH YEAH! I SAID PLAYIN' WIFFOUT DE 'G'!

Jeanette X · #22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Clement

I'm gonig to make it my lifes mission to proove this is NOT what the bible teaches!

OH NOES!!!111oneone

Newsflash: There have been volumes and volumes written about this. There is nothing you can say about the issue that hasn't been said already by people who are more articulate, more intelligent, and better educated than you.