Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Size and The $64,000.00 Question

-
With all the distractions by Thorton and blipey I almost missed the one question that can clear up the "size" issue.

Is a ball with a 9" circumference that weighs 5 ounces bigger, smaller or the same size as a ball with a 9" circumference that weighs 2 pounds?



My answer is the 5 ounce ball is smaller- meaning the 2 pound ball is bigger, it has more size, it is sizier, siziest even.

posted by Joe G @ 7:50 PM  

37 Comments:

  • At 8:56 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    Is a ball with a 12" circumference that weighs 5 ounces bigger, smaller or the same size as a ball with a 9" circumference that weighs 2 pounds?

    That's the one you've been cowardly avoiding for two weeks now.

     

  • At 9:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Answer the question Thorton.

    My question is directly relevant to the whole size issue.

    Your question is irrelevant- IOW it doesn't have any bearing on the issue.

    The issue is can a round piece of granite be the size and shape of a baseball.

    So we need two compare two objects with the SAME dimensions.

    Or are you too fucking stupid to understand that bit of reality?

     

  • At 9:31 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    Is a ball with a 12" circumference that weighs 5 ounces bigger, smaller or the same size as a ball with a 9" circumference that weighs 2 pounds?

    That's the one you've been cowardly avoiding for two weeks now.

    Make that two weeks and a day.

     

  • At 10:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hey asshole- how many baseballs are 12" in circumference?

     

  • At 10:24 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    Is a ball with a 12" circumference that weighs 5 ounces bigger, smaller or the same size as a ball with a 9" circumference that weighs 2 pounds?

    That's the one you've been cowardly avoiding for two weeks now.

    Make that two weeks and a day.

    Two weeks, a day, and an hour.

     

  • At 10:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Thorton has been trying to be a deceptive little prick for Two weeks, a day, and an hour.

    Thanks for the reference.

    Are you trying for a dishonesty record or something?

    Thorton's intellectual cowardice is exposed by his refusal to explain the relevance of his question.

    It is further exposed by Thorton's continued refusal to address the points I have made to support my claims.

     

  • At 10:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And one more point- seeing that Thorton just today asked the question about a 12" ball how can I have avoided it for over a week?

    Also am I really avoiding something that is an irrelevant distraction?

     

  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    So we need two compare two objects with the SAME dimensions.

    How incredibly stupid. So you can't do a size comparison between two objects unless they are the same linear dimensions?

    Which is "sizier" Joe, a baseball or a hockey puck?

    Is a ball with a 12" circumference that weighs 5 ounces bigger, smaller or the same size as a ball with a 9" circumference that weighs 2 pounds?

    C'mon Joe, quit stalling. Tell us which one is sizier

     

  • At 11:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So we need two compare two objects with the SAME dimensions.

    How incredibly stupid.

    Well let's think about that-

    Thorton was talking about a rouned piece of granite the size and shape of a baseball.

    So to see if a piece of granite can be the size of a baseball we need to compare that piece of granite with a baseball.

    A baseball is between 9-9.25 inches in circumference and weighs between 5-5.25 ounces.

    So we need to compare a baseball to a piece of granite with the SAME dimensions.

    That way we can size them up.

    So far from being stupid what I said is the way it has to be done.

    Which means Thorton is a moron for not understanding that.

     

  • At 11:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But we can end it all-

    the 9" 2 pound ball is bigger than the 12" 5 ounce ball.

    It is all about MASS and the 2 pound ball has more MASS than the 5 ounce ball.

    Also a piece of granite cannot be the size of a baseball because if it is 9-9.25" in circumference it will weigh more than 5-5.25 ounces.

    This is just as I said weeks ago.

     

  • At 12:01 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So "size" is meaningless? When JoeG says "size" he actually means "mass". One wonders why he just doesn't talk about "mass" in the first place?

    One wonders why he claims that dimensions are a key component of "size" when he says that "size" is meaningless unless objects have the same dimensions in the first place?

    One wonders why he keeps changing the parameters of what he's talking about?

    One can finally answer the question, however.

    JoeG's answer to the following question:

    Which has a greater "size", one cubic foot of granite or ten cubic feet of Nerf?

    Answer: Neither.

    Thanks for clearing that up, Joe. I don't think that answer is going to catch on, though.

     

  • At 12:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So "size" is meaningless?

    So blipey is retarded?

    Only a retarded person would even ask that question.

    When JoeG says "size" he actually means "mass".

    Nope, but as I said before mass is important to size.

    One wonders why he claims that dimensions are a key component of "size"

    I never made that claim asshole.

    IOW Erik you have no idea what I have claimed because you are too stupid to understand what I post.

    One wonders why he keeps changing the parameters of what he's talking about?

    You onl;y think I keep changing but in reality it is your twisted and demented mind that keeps changing what I post.

    So what we have is a retarded and dishonest clown, who can't understand the basics, lying about everything.

     

  • At 1:55 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    It is all about MASS and the 2 pound ball has more MASS than the 5 ounce ball.

    So according to you, a 12" tear in a piece of cloth and a 6" tear in piece of cloth are the same SIZE tear because both have the same zero mass.

    Is that how things are measured in Joeyland?

     

  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So according to you, a 12" tear in a piece of cloth and a 6" tear in piece of cloth are the same SIZE tear because both have the same zero mass.

    Nope.

    It is all about CONTEXT.

    When measuring two things with MASS then the one with GREATER MASS is BIGGER, HAS MORE SIZE, IS SIZIER, SIZIEST EVEN.

    However it is obvious that both the 12" and 6" tears have the same MASS as your brain...

     

  • At 2:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Pertaining to mass:

    Is that how things are measured in Joeyland?

    No, it's called physics, which is science, which is what has you so confused...

     

  • At 4:04 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    It is all about CONTEXT.

    Like when people talk about a "baseball-sized" rock, in the CONTEXT they mean the linear dimensions.

    Thanks for finally admitting you are wrong.

     

  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Like when people talk about a "baseball-sized" rock, in the CONTEXT they mean the linear dimensions.

    No that doesn't follow at all.

    Is a ball with a 9" circumference that weighs 5 ounces bigger, smaller or the same size as a ball with a 9" circumference that weighs 2 pounds?

    My answer is the 5 ounce ball is smaller- meaning the 2 pound ball is bigger, it has more size, it is sizier, siziest even.

    As I said weeks ago if a person wanted to say that it had the linear dimensions of a baseball that is what should have been stated.

    A piece of granite cannot be baseball sized.

    And a river cannot form a piece of granite into the shape of a baseball.

     

  • At 4:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Also a piece of granite cannot be the size of a baseball because if it is 9-9.25" in circumference it will weigh more than 5-5.25 ounces.

    This is just as I said weeks ago.

     

  • At 6:15 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Also a piece of granite cannot be the size of a baseball because if it is 9-9.25" in circumference it will weigh more than 5-5.25 ounces.

    Unless the rock is hollow.

     

  • At 7:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So a gas bubble forms inside some granite.

    A piece, which includes the bubble, breaks off and magically erodes around the bubble just enough so that it weighs 5-5.25 ounces with a circumference of 9-9.25".

    And Thorton just happens by it on his hike by a river.

    Well if that is the case then he couldn't find anyone to make an exact copy.

     

  • At 7:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thorton:
    Like when people talk about a "baseball-sized" rock, in the CONTEXT they mean the linear dimensions.

    But we have already determined that "size" is more than one thing.

    I know it is difficult to follow along but please do try to keep up.

     

  • At 12:09 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Is there a type of "size" in which dimensions don't matter?

    If it's all about context, then "size" is meaningless as a measurement.

    Thanks.

     

  • At 6:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Is there a type of "size" in which dimensions don't matter?

    What's your point?

    If it's all about context, then "size" is meaningless as a measurement.

    Good luck explaining that bit of retarded spewage.

     

  • At 9:00 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Well, you claim that dimensions are indeed a part of "size".

    But then you claim that it is meaningless to compare the "size" of two things that are not of the sam dimensions.

    Both of those things can't be true, so which is it?

     

  • At 10:20 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But then you claim that it is meaningless to compare the "size" of two things that are not of the sam dimensions.

    That isn't my claim.

    I even did it- compared the "size" of two things that are not the sam simensions.

    My claim is that it is irrelevant to the discussion and I even explained why.

     

  • At 7:35 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Is this what you're talking about?

    JoeG: "the 9" 2 pound ball is bigger than the 12" 5 ounce ball."

    So "size" = "bigger"?

    So a 12" Nerf ball is "bigger" than a 9" Nerf ball? Or does "bigger" also mean "mass"?

    If that is the case, is there any sort of comparative term that does NOT mean "mass"?

    What dimensions would a Nerf ball have to have in order to be "bigger" than 1 cubic foot of granite?

    Incidentally, at what grade level would you recommend placing this science question?

     

  • At 8:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So "size" = "bigger"?

    Size could be smaller.

    Big is a size. Small is a size.

    big:

    Of considerable size, number, quantity, magnitude, or extent; large

     

  • At 8:23 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Sure, dipshit, but how do you define "bigger"? Does "big" contain mass? how about density?

    define "big".

    You're an asshat. Just try to answer questions instead of trying to define your way out of stupidity.

     

  • At 8:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Answer YOUR questions?

    But you are full of shit stupid.

    You are one of the most ignorant and dishonest people on the planet.

    You never address the points I make.

    You never demonstrate an understanding of the topic.

    And you never provide positive evidence for your position.

    IOW you are a typical evotard coward.

     

  • At 11:07 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Stuff. Positive evidence, Darwiniacs don't provide. Cake. CSI is measured, by counting the numbers. I don't have to provide. Obvious errors. Point out? No. Need. Prozac. Chance Worshipers (whoops, thought I was in Austin there...). Questions. Destroyed scientists with my curriculum. Bye Now.

     

  • At 7:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik. Retraded. Dishonest. Loser. Ignorant. Imbecile. Lunatic. Momma's boy. Can't support position. Coward. clown- mad clown's disease. Piece of shit. pin head. screammer. wanker. badger people with ignorance. totally irrelevant. typical evotard.

     

  • At 8:50 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Joe. Your own material, please. I want to believe in you. I do. You make it hard, though. I keep thinking that THIS is the time, that THIS is the comment through which you'll show your genius. But rest assured, however often you fumble and flail with all things comic, I am still a true believer. I believe in you, Joe. Your latent talent. Your as yet unseen ability to induce a belly laugh. Your carefully hidden originality. Thanks, Joe. Thanks for all that I think you could be capable of.

     

  • At 9:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik, I have to copy tard, I cannot spew it as easily as you.

    But mocking your tard works.

    Also compared to you I am a super-genius.

    Now how about actually addressing something as opposed to being an asshole?

     

  • At 9:34 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Oh, if only I had ever commented on "size" in this thread. If ever I had asked a question about "size". If only I had ever given an example using "size". If only "size" were in the opening post....

    I guess I'll just never be a big...no--a size--winner.

     

  • At 9:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik,

    You still haven't responded to any points I have made pertaining to size.

    However you have lied about what I have said.

     

  • At 12:43 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    I have continually asked you to work an example so that I can see the proper way to measure size. I have asked you to compare objects of different sizes so that I may be able to do the calculation on size.

    You have refused to clarify any of these points. You have refused to clarify anything you post. It's not that I have not asked questions, it is that you have not answered them.

    It seems odd that your response to questions of clarification is to claim that no one tries to understand you.

    You could, of course, clear all this up by working an example.

    What's has a greater "size":

    1. one cubic foot of granite

    or

    2. 10 cubic feet of Nerf?

    At what dimensions will these two objects have the same "size"?

    Please show your work so that I may be able to calculate the size of different objects. I will then submit my results for your critique.

    Thank you for supplying working examples that will help clarify the meaning of "size".

     

  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I am not answerable to you clownie.

    You have never even demonstrated any understanding of what I have already posted.

    IOW everything I post is a just a wste of my time as far as you are concerned.

    You still haven't responded to any points I have made pertaining to size.

    However you have lied about what I have said.

    That is why I will not answer any of your questions- you never respond to mine.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home