Strange

Interesting point. I would say that CS is a branch of (applied) mathematics that makes extensive use of logic. As such, it has probably had in impact on philosophy - e.g. models of how the universe or mind works.

Exactly. http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

I think so ...

Nice. But aren't Venn diagrams a product of mathematics (specifically, set theory). And so everything can be subsumed under that.

They can certainly lead to wrong conclusions. (I don't see how logic can lead to an illogical conclusion.) This is the difference between validity and soundness. Ignoring any discussion of whether Bohr is right or not (as off topic) one can assume the question means: was he as real as any other person.

Another strawman. Well done.

Sigh. Do we have to go through all your threads and count the number of times you have done that? And post examples because you will still deny it? I'm sure they are. That doesn't stop them doing bad/pseudo science. That would be why Phi quoted an example: to help you remember. So you demand, repeatedly, examples. And when they are provided you just dismiss them with, "oh that doesn't matter". Can you see why people like Ophiolite and many other members now have a very negative attitude to your style of posting? Indeed. You are pretty skilled in them.

Indeed. As if it is a singular noun.

"As mathematics IS the logic of physics, so law is the logic of politics." "Is" is the singular copula. Also, a parallel is being drawn with "law", which is also singular. Therefore, in this context, mathematics is singular. As it nearly always is. I can't think of an example where mathematics is used as a plural, but I'm sure there are some. Perhaps because that isn't the point you made?

It is not (normally) plural. It is a singular form, that just happens to end in an 's' (like physics or glass).

And this is why the denialist tactic of "what's so special about the climate now" is so dishonest (or ignorant).

Versatile and delicious.

Newton used exactly that example (well, not baseball) to explain orbits: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/Newton_cannon.html Here is an interactive version: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/11882821/ Basically, your baseball or bullet needs to reach orbital speed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

I would count misrepresenting what people say and using strawman arguments as examples of this. (especially in the context of Phi's comments) You do this continuously in all your threads. To give just one example (from a thread which you created based on a version of the scientific method that you made up), you spent many posts accusing me of saying something I didn't say, i.e. something that you made up: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91338-scientific-testing-split-from-goal-of-science/page-2#entry886152 Now, back to the subject of this thread: creationism. It is ironic that this is a subject so very dear to your heart that you are keen to drag it into other discussions. Yet here in a thread devoted to the subject, you have nothing to say? Also, it is not entirely clear to me that Phi for All was actually accusing you of making things up. He was explaining to you (and others) what a "straw man" argument is, as you gave the impression of not knowing.

Perhaps because English is probably the only area where rhetoric and (informal) logic are covered as most schools don't have philosophy lessons.

I think I would say that mathematical logic is the formalization (and possibly extension?) of one part of the more general subject of logic (which probably belongs under philosophy).

But if you are talking about sedimentary rocks, then all this talk of supernovae, meteorites and the orgin of water all seems moot (although very interesting). Surely, by the time sedimentary rocks could form, all of the minerals and water must have been in place? (But geology is not my strongest subject ...)

Well, I assume the question was intended literally (as implied by the use of the word "real"). In which case, the metaphors and symbolism in the Bible are of little use - except that they may provide some incidental detail as to the time, place, people, etc. that could be used to check for corroborative evidence. After all, if the question was not meant literally, then presumably it would be "Was Jesus a person of symbolic importance?" To which the answer is a rather obvious yes. Or is there another interpretation that I am missing?

Yes. But ... There were many meteors that fell to Earth, particularly in its early history. Some of these may have been large enough to deposit sedimentary layers. For example, the iridium layer that is thought to be due to the Chicxulub meteor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarez_hypothesis http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html But again, this is generally insignificant compared to the large mass of the Earth. Although, apparently, a large proportion of water might have come from meteorites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth

There is no necessary correlation between existing and learning a language. Not all thoughts use language.

While I think this is exaggerated, there are clearly some cases where individuals have been reluctant to accept new ideas (Einsten and QM, Eddington and Chandrasekhar's work, etc). However, there are probably just as many examples of the opposite: scientists propping up a theory long after it has been shown not to work (Hoyle and the steady state universe is a great example). This comes back to it being a human activity, with all the failings that entails. But, in the long run, the process works and is arguably better because of that. For example, Hoyle's strenuous defence of the steady state model meant that he and others were constantly reviewing the data.

The formation of the solar system. They were all formed in earlier generations of stars going supernova.

But not for anyone else. This "problem" only exists in your imagination.

All the elements on Earth were present at the beginning. There have been a few changes due to radioactive decay but that is pretty insignificant in the overall scheme of things. I think all the helium on Earth comes from radioactive decay. Ditto radon. Note that all the elements other than hydrogen were previously created in supernovae (only hydrogen and helium - and a tiny amount of lithium - are truly primordial).