
Algebra PreAlgebra and Basic Algebra Math Forum 
 LinkBack  Thread Tools  Display Modes 
July 20th, 2017, 05:25 PM  #11  
Newbie Joined: Jul 2017 From: Pennsylvania Posts: 10 Thanks: 0  Quote:
However from what I know (and can remember) of the bible, I don't recall anything in it that would be contradictory to science...unless you take every word in it literally. I had a coworker some years ago when I was in the Air Force, heck of a nice guy, but he believed the earth and the heavens were created literally in 7 days. He also was one of those "the earth is only 6000 years old" types too, soooo Of course, my views (and to a great extent my knowledge) is limited to that of a white male raised in the southern U.S. I've been pretty steadfast in how I view the relationship of science and religion most of my life (it did take a while to grow, become educated and gain some worldly experience). I don't if I will ever change it, but anything is possible!  
July 20th, 2017, 05:33 PM  #12  
Newbie Joined: Jul 2017 From: Pennsylvania Posts: 10 Thanks: 0  Quote:
Genesis, for example, tells us that God created the heavens and the earth and he put us on it. That's fine, and I don't debate that. Evolution, to me, is just the mechanism to that end. I think some people think he literally snapped his fingers and POOF, here we are. Given that evolution is proven, and in conjunction with so many other things we've learned and understand now, it makes sense that it took quite a while before mankind (as we generally accept the definition today) showed up. God did whatever he did to put these things into motion and eventually, here we are. There's no difference, he still "made us."  
July 20th, 2017, 05:46 PM  #13  
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 142 Thanks: 60  Quote:
 
July 20th, 2017, 07:14 PM  #14  
Senior Member Joined: Feb 2016 From: Australia Posts: 1,351 Thanks: 462 Math Focus: Yet to find out.  Quote:
If you wish to take 'advice' or moral value from the bible and then cherry pick what you think is to be taken literally or not, then why bother at all?  
July 21st, 2017, 02:21 AM  #15  
Senior Member Joined: Apr 2014 From: Glasgow Posts: 2,068 Thanks: 692 Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions  Quote:
Quote:
Every mathematical model has conditions or domains of applicability. They also have a set of assumptions that are inherent in the building of the model which outline how the model behaves under those conditions within the specified domain. If the model can be compared to another scenario or situation that is more detailed (e.g. reality) then the model will probably only approximate the situation or scenario and the model can be considered a success if the error is low enough to satisfy whoever's using the model. Laws of physics are no exception. Newton's laws, for example, only work when the velocity of the objects involved are low; when those objects start travelling faster and faster (closer to the speed of light), the error found when comparing the calculations to reality is so large that Newton's laws simply give incorrect answers and can't be used anymore. Therefore, when using Newton's laws to solve a scenario involving every day objects, there is the assumption that relativistic effects caused by rapidly moving objects are ignored. Being aware of these kinds of assumptions or conditions is important when doing any mathematical modelling. Also, as suggested already, there are two ways of predicting something new, interpolation and extrapolation. Interpolation is predicting something by considering a middle ground between two points, whereas extrapolation is going beyond a point into unknown territory. In general, extrapolation is considered more dangerous because you're effectively widening the domain of applicability that you assume your model is valid for. However, it really boils down to how well the trends are understood. There are a rare few phenomena that can occur where orders of magnitude changes in a particular trend are observed for tiny changes in a variable that may have been missed in a broadbrush study (such as nuclear resonances). In such situations, interpolation is just as dangerous as extrapolation. Thankfully, such situations are very rare, so 'surprise!' instances don't happen very often and we can still predict things.  

Tags 
exponential, functions, question 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Question on exponential functions  EDL  Algebra  1  July 19th, 2017 02:24 PM 
Exponential Functions  Lucas Webb  Algebra  2  March 5th, 2016 04:33 PM 
Derivatives, trignometric functions and exponential functions  Nij  Calculus  2  November 25th, 2015 06:20 AM 
Help with exponential functions  BlackSnowMarine  Algebra  3  February 13th, 2014 08:08 PM 
Help with exponential functions  BlackSnowMarine  Algebra  4  February 1st, 2014 04:05 AM 