- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:49) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Mashup (or mash it up) is a Jamaican Creole term meaning to destroy.
It's a Web 2.0 term. Try looking at Google Maps APIs. They can be used for mashups. Try googling “mashup” and you will see what it means.It amazes me when people ask how to spell a word or want to know the answer to something, when they are sitting in front of a computer with a browser open.
That aside, I heard a funny but true comment once.
Went something like this:
Today we have a machine that catalogues nearly all the world's information and can answer almost any question we ask it, and what do people type into it?
“Britney Spears”.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:49) You say easily. What is the Theory of God Creating Code?
It's called common sense. When you see complex code, you just assume that it didn't write itself.Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:49) Again, what mechanism are you suggesting here? The Theory of God Knowing In Advance which viruses will mutate which ways? How does that go?
I heard a scientist say once that the whole universe we see today, was determined in the first few moments of the Big Bang.In other words all that we see had it's cause back in the beginning.
Certainly an all knowing God could easily code viruses to mutate. The ability to mutate is also written in the code.
It is simply one code acting on another.
E.g., every human is made up of DNA code from both parents. The code is joined. An all knowing God could easily know all the possibilities and cater for all outcomes if he wanted.
E.g., if I write a computer virus, I could incorporate the ability to mutate in order to make the virus survive. It would be my choice as it's creator.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:49) ++” Junk DNA could be any of the following: DNA that we do not understand. DNA that was used once but not now. DNA that could be used in the future if our environment changes The same question of course could be asked of your faith. Why Junk DNA? What would force evolution to produce junk DNA if it had no survival usage? Another question is whether keeping it has any survival disadvantage. Still, your statement is completely in line with evolutionary theory (apart from the oxymoronic “faith” part).
It is also in line with acknowledgment of a creator. Of itself it proves neither opinion.Junk DNA is probably named because of usefulness has yet to be determined, either by knowledge past or present, or by a change in environment to show its hidden use.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:50) Please can you link to some scientific evidence that supports this hypothesis. Forget about the Second Law of Thermodynamics – living things are not closed systems.
That's priceless.Imagine that there was no God or manager of the universe. Then what is the chances that favored chaos will happen over miraculous order?
If the universe is to be around forever as a construct that can hold life and the things essential for life, as well as bodies with there own phenomenon, then it would need to favor order that can sustain life forever, which is less likely than chaos. In other words chaos would have to lose forever against order.
There are a lot more ways chaos can happen than order.
Try running a business, and chaos will most likely eventuate if you leave the business to run itself. Forever is a long time and it is a type of belief that would say that this order could sustain itself forever without management.
Current scientific thought suggests a universe that will continue to expand forever and eventually as everything moves apart, there would inevitably be just darkness.
Either way you look at it, suns, planets, galaxies, all have time limits. At some stage in the past, the universe came alight. To suggest that the lights will be on forever is a belief, a kind of faith.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:50) ++”The human DNA has lot's of DNA that has negative consequences. Man is not perfect although the prototype was. All sorts of code has been introduced as a curse to man. You can read about these things in scripture. Sin brings curse. It is a law. The soul that sins will die. God limited mans years severely because of sin. He does so by tampering with the code. Such functions are in the code.
You cannot provide scientific evidence either that suggests that the gene pool was better. But certain weaknesses and less favourable characteristics appeared for the first time at some point. So at least common sense provides us with the idea that such things didn't exist in the genome once.Scientific evidence suggests that we will die. But the cause is yet to be determined scientifically.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:50) It doesn’t suggest anything about a creator at all. You haven’t said what kind of code you would expect from a creator! You have just asserted a circular argument for one, based on no premise at all, apart from the proposed existence of such a malevolent dimwit.
Stu, when you look at a car, do you think wow it can drive.But even you would admit that the way it works would be to look under the bonnet.
Similarly looking at people, animals, and even cells, you can learn a lot by looking at it's components and DNA, (the code).
For surface features are really determined by such things.
If I look at a beautifully handcrafted mat, it looks like order, but turn the mat upside down and you will see why it looks that way. The other side may not look pretty, but it can help explain why the surface pattern is the way it is.
To anyone, a work is quite telling of the one who worked it.
But you don't believe that someone is responsible, so who really is the malevolent dimwit?
Hebrews 3:4
For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, there is no GodNow I don't call you a malevolent dimwit, but scripture has something to say on that subject of which I have quoted above.
So your talk of a malevolent dimwit is your opinion. But is that really the opinion of a malevolent dimwit? You should be open to that possibility Stu.
Hi t8
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:49)
You say easily. What is the Theory of God Creating Code?++”It's called common sense. When you see complex code, you just assume that it didn't write itself.
…you just assume… So there’s no theory here, then?
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:49)
Again, what mechanism are you suggesting here? The Theory of God Knowing In Advance which viruses will mutate which ways? How does that go?++”Certainly an all knowing God could easily code viruses to mutate. The ability to mutate is also written in the code. It is simply one code acting on another.
No theory here either, with no evidence for it. Speculation far worse that the looniest of the hypotheses of abiogenesis!
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:49)
Another question is whether keeping it has any survival disadvantage. Still, your statement is completely in line with evolutionary theory (apart from the oxymoronic “faith” part).++”It is also in line with acknowledgment of a creator. Of itself it proves neither opinion. Junk DNA is probably named because of usefulness has yet to be determined, either by knowledge past or present, or by a change in environment to show its hidden use.
Probably?? What kind of a scientific theory is that? As we know already, creation makes no predictions. “Junk” DNA is exactly the kind of thing you would expect from an evolutionary history, and within it is included the makings of new DNA. If a creator set it all up he has made it all look exactly like it happened by natural selection.
Stuart
t8
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:50)
Please can you link to some scientific evidence that supports this hypothesis. Forget about the Second Law of Thermodynamics – living things are not closed systems.++”That's priceless. Imagine that there was no God or manager of the universe. Then what is the chances that favored chaos will happen over miraculous order? If the universe is to be around forever as a construct that can hold life and the things essential for life, as well as bodies with there own phenomenon, then it would need to favor order that can sustain life forever, which is less likely than chaos. In other words chaos would have to lose forever against order. There are a lot more ways chaos can happen than order.
Do you understand the thermodynamic argument? Do you know what a closed system is? Have you read what Answers in Genesis says about it?
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 05 2007,18:50)
It doesn’t suggest anything about a creator at all. You haven’t said what kind of code you would expect from a creator! You have just asserted a circular argument for one, based on no premise at all, apart from the proposed existence of such a malevolent dimwit.++”Stu, when you look at a car, do you think wow it can drive. But even you would admit that the way it works would be to look under the bonnet. Similarly looking at people, animals, and even cells, you can learn a lot by looking at it's components and DNA, (the code). For surface features are really determined by such things. If I look at a beautifully handcrafted mat, it looks like order, but turn the mat upside down and you will see why it looks that way. The other side may not look pretty, but it can help explain why the surface pattern is the way it is. To anyone, a work is quite telling of the one who worked it. But you don't believe that someone is responsible, so who really is the malevolent dimwit?
So what workings do you see in DNA t8? Science sees common ancestry with all other living species. The creationists’ retort is common design, but that does not explain the results of comparative DNA studies nor the fossil record. Creation is not science. If it were there would be a proper theory, with falsifiability and predictions, like what sort of code you would expect from a creator. The Theory of Evolution was written in 1859. Darwin had no idea about the nature of genetic code, yet he knew that there was something causing variation in living populations. The structure of DNA was discovered in 1952. Genomes were begun to be decoded in the 1990s. Not one fact from all that discovery of the nature of genetic code disagrees with Darwin. If you have a better scientific theory, I am all ears.
++”Hebrews 3:4
For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.And we know there is no such thing as a self-replicating house with a mutable recipe for it.
++”Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, there is no GodI used my brain to come to that conclusion, not my heart.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2007,18:17) I used my brain to come to that conclusion, not my heart.
Your brain which doesn't even hold to .0000005% of all the knowledge in existence.So then, what does that make you?
Or is it your heart that dictates what you believe? After all, our brains are incapable of disproving God with it's little knowledge.
So where does your conviction come from then? Don't say your brain please. If you do, then are we to assume that you are foolish, by making such absolute statements even though you possess less than .0000005% of all knowledge?
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2007,18:17) Science sees common ancestry with all other living species.
Science which is knowledge also sees common features between the 2000 BMW with the 2007 one.Did the 2007 one come from the 2005 or did a creator make both, but use 90 something percent common features?
Perhaps if you were an artificial life form and were viewing a movie showing both cars, then you could think that one came from the other, as Evolution teaches. But you could also assume that both were created.
But if you couldn't see the creator/s, then both could argue their theories till the cows come home. They only see the effect and not the cause.
Of course we both know that both BMW's were created because we can see the creator and it is common sense among other manufactured things that mankind is responsible for such things.
But immerse yourself in a world where you cannot see the creator. Only his works. How would you know if things were created or not?
Common sense is one. And faith in God is another.
But if you have neither, then you would never be able to understand.
Hi t8
++”Your brain which doesn't even hold to .0000005% of all the knowledge in existence. So then, what does that make you? Or is it your heart that dictates what you believe? After all, our brains are incapable of disproving God with it's little knowledge.
There are many things our brains are incapable of disproving. Bertrand Russell demonstrated this with his orbiting teapot. My heart pumps blood around my body. You’re going to have to be a bit more specific about what your heart does, t8.
++”So where does your conviction come from then? Don't say your brain please. If you do, then are we to assume that you are foolish, by making such absolute statements even though you possess less than .0000005% of all knowledge?
My brain and what it observes, and no.
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2007,18:17)
Science sees common ancestry with all other living species.++”Science which is knowledge also sees common features between the 2000 BMW with the 2007 one. Did the 2007 one come from the 2005 or did a creator make both, but use 90 something percent common features? Perhaps if you were an artificial life form and were viewing a movie showing both cars, then you could think that one came from the other, as Evolution teaches. But you could also assume that both were created.
Where does the theory of evolution show that cars beget cars? South German industrialists do not modify their cars by leaving self-replicating recipes out in ultraviolet light or near radioactive granite hoping for a mutation. They do re-use parts, but those parts show intricate redesign, whereas the parts in our bodies look “cobbled-together” from bits (sometimes from unrelated bits) of the organs our ancient ancestors had. My favourite example this month is the pantaris muscle in the foot, which is very important for tree-dwelling apes but useless in humans. 9% of humans don’t even have one.
++”But if you couldn't see the creator/s, then both could argue their theories till the cows come home. They only see the effect and not the cause.
I think those who dismiss evolution because of a rigid belief in a book of mythology are the ones who see the effect but not the cause.
++”Of course we both know that both BMW's were created because we can see the creator and it is common sense among other manufactured things that mankind is responsible for such things.
Yes! Why didn’t you say so before?
++”But immerse yourself in a world where you cannot see the creator. Only his works. How would you know if things were created or not? Common sense is one. And faith in God is another. But if you have neither, then you would never be able to understand.
Why do I see angels dancing on the head of a pin?
Check out “Why people believe strange things”.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 06 2007,05:24) There are many things our brains are incapable of disproving. Bertrand Russell demonstrated this with his orbiting teapot. My heart pumps blood around my body. You’re going to have to be a bit more specific about what your heart does, t8.
Um, when you get to the heart of a matter, or the heart of anything, we are not always talking about an organ that pumps blood. This clearly demonstrates a restriction in your thinking.You hear something and automatically relate it to how you currently think. That makes it hard for you to see new paradigms. A true scientist needs to be very open to possibilities outside of his/her experience.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heart
Quote the center of the total personality, esp. with reference to intuition, feeling, or emotion: In your heart you know I'm an honest man.
4.the center of emotion, esp. as contrasted to the head as the center of the intellect: His head told him not to fall in love, but his heart had the final say.
5.capacity for sympathy; feeling; affection: His heart moved him to help the needy.
6.spirit, courage, or enthusiasm: His heart sank when he walked into the room and saw their gloomy faces.
7.the innermost or central part of anything: Notre Dame stands in the very heart of Paris.
8.the vital or essential part; core: the heart of the matter.Quote (Stu @ Nov. 06 2007,05:24) I think those who dismiss evolution because of a rigid belief in a book of mythology are the ones who see the effect but not the cause.
You said it. It is what you think.Thanks for being honest.
What we think is not always fact.
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 06 2007,05:24) Check out “Why people believe strange things”.
Such as that nothing made the Cosmos?Quote (Stu @ Nov. 06 2007,05:24) Science sees common ancestry with all other living species.
Science = knowledge.Seeing is in the eye or mind of the beholder.
Common features demonstrates a common denominator of some kind. That common denominator logically speaking could easily be the creator.
But you have closed your mind to this possibility, therefore you choose to be blind. i.e., you cannot see or as you put it, your science cannot see.
hey t8Interesting the seven day creation has not called daylight a sun, as in a created ball of fire
fire has always been associated with judgment, destroying cities,
A blazing fire ball is all that gives this world light?
Men see only to judge the fire and its powers, to know its ways, above its command from God to rise set each day, coming forth, and continual years, burning eternally rising every day……Interesting…. the day the covenant with Abraham was made, Abraham viewed a smoking furnace a Lamp pass between those two pieces?…… Gen 15:17 ¶ And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. (explosion perhaps)18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
First mention and use of the word sun, in the KJV bible is in verse…..Gen 15:12
And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon himEven more Interesting …. first mention of fire is…Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
what-cha think?Hi t8
Quote Um, when you get to the heart of a matter, or the heart of anything, we are not always talking about an organ that pumps blood. This clearly demonstrates a restriction in your thinking. I know in my kidneys that you are wrong about this. It is a shame that you cannot understand kidney knowledge the way I can.
Quote You hear something and automatically relate it to how you currently think. That makes it hard for you to see new paradigms. A true scientist needs to be very open to possibilities outside of his/her experience. (SNIPPED definitions of Heart)
You would lose a formal debate on points by failing to define heart at the beginning. I defined heart as the thing that pumps blood first, even though you proposed the idea.As for new experiences, I am open to the possibility that god exists, you are not open to the possibility that he doesn’t. Do I need to post some definitions of hypocrisy?
Stuart
Hi again t8
Stu: I think those who dismiss evolution because of a rigid belief in a book of mythology are the ones who see the effect but not the cause.
Quote You said it. It is what you think. Thanks for being honest. What we think is not always fact. Well I’m amazed. I would have thought you would be the last person to make such a scientific statement. I’ve never before been thanked here for pointing out that rigid biblical dogmatism obscures the truth from believers, or is “thank you” a common term of abuse by christians? David seems to use it quite often. Maybe it’s another special “christian” definition of common words.
Stuart
t8
Quote Such as that nothing made the Cosmos? Yes your god did not make the Cosmos because he is the pattern you see that isn’t there, just like the faces on Mars, or the satanic lyrics on reverse-play shown in the video clip. I am open to evidence that such a being did make everything. You still have not told me how, or why (since you assign purpose), or where the Creator came from.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
