- This topic is empty.
- Posts
None existent – except that Programming is just that – Give me a language I will learn it – Perl is not 'hard' – it's just antiquated because it was from the times of short memory storage and had to be highly efficient, terse even, ahh, the days of “Unix Wizards” and other such “Padowan learners”.
Did you see my Javascript example – so much easier…
Oh the JavaScript example. I remember now.
I myself have short memory storage. About 4 megs of ram if I was to give a measurement.Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 30 2010,11:26) Hi Stuart, Isaiah 40:22, This is metaphorical speech to illustrate
God is in control over the affairs on planet Earth.Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers…For you to imply this circle is flat rather that spherical is absurd!
For you to do so requires some mental gymnastics…
1) First you have to try to convince us all that he meant a pancake shape instead.
2) Then you have to stand this pancake shape up on it's side to match the textual meaning.You just lost round 2!
Care to go again for round #3?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Sorry Ed, not interested in litigating this tedious non-argument with you anymore. Go ahead and have your poll, and we will see how many others agree with you that a circle is a sphere.Stuart
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 30 2010,11:28) Hey, Dawkins was on UK tv again – telling us how the ENORMOUSLY complexed eye (Visual) system 'Came about by sheer chance'. Ok, there was truth in elements of what he says. It is the denial of the creator, the designer, the purposer – that is his real crime.
Tell us Prof Dawkins, if the eye only took a few millions years to evolve to this state – What further states will it evolve to in a few more million years.
Additionally, what further Carbon based life forms are likely to spontaneously evolve soon.PD. Is it not a dangerous thing for species to Spontaneously evolve – Doesn't LIFE show the danger: Like American Grey squirrels introduced into British Red Squirl land dessimated the grey Squirl population…remember Mixamatosis in Aussi land?
A careful gardener doesn't mix herbs with shrubs – but man is not a careful gardener – but God is a careful Gardener…
I would lay money with you that Dawkins did not say the eye came about “by sheer chance”. He is usually at pains to differentiate between the chance mutations that give to new variations in the gene pool and the non-chance processes of natural selection that blindly led to the eye.Judging by your past complaints that the language was too complicated for you I wonder if you might have missed the sophistication of his descriptions.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 30 2010,11:29) Stu how are those 2 apes getting on who are randomly hitting the keys on typewriters?
Have they typed out the complete Oxford Dictionary yet, have they come close to only fail on the last word, or is it still all a load of gibberish because of the lack of sufficient intelligence?
I would be surprised if any monkey made it as far as the end of the word aardvark, but actually all dictionaries have indeed been produced by apes typing on keyboards. I think there are more than two of them working for Oxford University Press though.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 30 2010,17:12) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 30 2010,11:26) Hi Stuart, Isaiah 40:22, This is metaphorical speech to illustrate
God is in control over the affairs on planet Earth.Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers…For you to imply this circle is flat rather that spherical is absurd!
For you to do so requires some mental gymnastics…
1) First you have to try to convince us all that he meant a pancake shape instead.
2) Then you have to stand this pancake shape up on it's side to match the textual meaning.You just lost round 2!
Care to go again for round #3?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Sorry Ed, not interested in litigating this tedious non-argument with you anymore. Go ahead and have your poll, and we will see how many others agree with you that a circle is a sphere.Stuart
Hi Stuart,It was wise of you to concede in round #2;
because you would have fared no better in round three!Isaiah 1:18-20 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:
though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though
they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient,
ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured
with the sword(of Bible Truth): for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken. (Revelation 19:15)I'm not concerned with how many agree with me, but only that I can convince ‘you’ of “Bible Truth”!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Sep. 30 2010,18:23) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 30 2010,17:12) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 30 2010,11:26) Hi Stuart, Isaiah 40:22, This is metaphorical speech to illustrate
God is in control over the affairs on planet Earth.Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers…For you to imply this circle is flat rather that spherical is absurd!
For you to do so requires some mental gymnastics…
1) First you have to try to convince us all that he meant a pancake shape instead.
2) Then you have to stand this pancake shape up on it's side to match the textual meaning.You just lost round 2!
Care to go again for round #3?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Sorry Ed, not interested in litigating this tedious non-argument with you anymore. Go ahead and have your poll, and we will see how many others agree with you that a circle is a sphere.Stuart
Hi Stuart,It was wise of you to concede in round #2;
because you would have fared no better in round three!Isaiah 1:18-20 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:
though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though
they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient,
ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured
with the sword(of Bible Truth): for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken. (Revelation 19:15)I'm not concerned with how many agree with me, but only that I can convince ‘you’ of “Bible Truth”!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
I have conceded nothing to you Ed. You have not put up anything to concede.I see that your interest is not the same as mine. I am interested in what is true, no matter what it might turn out to be. You aren't, all you want to do is convince me of your dogma.
Would you like some feedback on how convincing you have been so far?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 30 2010,19:06) I have conceded nothing to you Ed. You have not put up anything to concede. (1)I see that your interest is not the same as mine. (2)I am interested in what is true, no matter what it might turn out to be. (3) You aren't, all you want to do is convince me of your dogma.
(4)Would you like some feedback on how convincing you have been so far?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1) Correct; you seek to establish Atheism. I illustrate that Atheism is a farce!
2) The false dichotomy truth of Stuart is a LIE!
3) Holy Bible = God is Real
4) Go for it.
You have not convinced me that there is anything more than your own choosing going on in your numerology, which is clearly what it involves; you have not convinced me that the word circle should be interpreted as “sphere”, because there are Hebrew words for ball that are used elsewhere by the writer of Isaiah, but not in reference to the shape of the earth; and you have not convinced me that intelligence is required for the diversification of life.
That's zero out of three Ed. You could think me unreasonably stubborn, but in every case I have given you sound reasons for remaining unconvinced.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 30 2010,19:33) 1) You have not convinced me that the word circle should be interpreted as “sphere”, because there are Hebrew words for ball that are used elsewhere by the writer of Isaiah, but not in reference to the shape of the earth; 2) You could think me unreasonably stubborn, but in every case I have given you sound reasons for remaining unconvinced.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1) Please do show this assertion of yours.
2) You saying you don't believe what the FACTS suggest is hardly ‘sound reasoning’?
Stu, was it you or me that was watching? You seem to want to tell me what I saw and heard…is that wise, isn't that indoctrination of a sort?
Even the presenter talking with him looked on with doubt,, 'So you are saying that the eye evolved by chance', 'Oh, yes, that's how it happened', said the walkin' talkin' Dawkin'
Hold a bag of clear liquid in front of a pinhole camera…hey, upside down image, muddy clear. Make the liquid solid but just as clear, hey clearer image. The octopus has the clearest vision of all equatic animals, Eagles, the sharpest of birds, mankind, the most sophisticated (through brain analysis).
He says, it evolved to help detect food, prey and predators. Why? Why the complexity of the eye?
Electrical detection like with sharks is far more effecient in water and the waters can be as muddy as you like and it still works. Eyes are not so good then, and in the dark.The Walkin' never says 'why'
… He only says 'how'
Is he he shy?
Ooh, that's catty, meow.No, it's because that's all science can do. Say how things came about and what might be.
Science never says 'why'.
No, stop there…i hear ya'
I mean the 'Big Question WHY' not the 'why of the how and where'. See, that is all amusement for 'child like ones'.
An adult, mature mind, says, 'WHY did it happen at all? Why did it happen in the first place?', and, 'if there is no 'fat-controller (sorry God, couldn't resist)', who or what determines the overall course of things seen and unseen, made, unmade and yet to be made?'
That is a severely unsatisfactory use of a highly intelligent creation.'Random selection'…even the meaning of the word 'random' is spurious. Nothing is 'random'. Man says 'random' for what he cannot calculate…ha ha…then later he learns to calculate it and then explain it…ha ha…so it was only 'random' because he didn't know. Things are only random when he doesn't have an answer…ha ha, like in the Superman film when they use charcoal to fill in the last element of the antihero superman, or Jurassic park, where they used frog dna to fill in the missing gene for the dynasaurs. Or the obligatory 'unknown', or 'constant' in an equation. Is it not dangerous if there is no one who actually knows what the outcome should be?
Who is there to redress the balance if the 'unknown' or that quiessent constant is wrong? What about latency, when and how is that awakened, random?
“Random”, another Science God?Did i not say that even Athiest believe in God, or 'a God' at the extreme least?
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 30 2010,17:20) Quote (t8 @ Sep. 30 2010,11:29) Stu how are those 2 apes getting on who are randomly hitting the keys on typewriters?
Have they typed out the complete Oxford Dictionary yet, have they come close to only fail on the last word, or is it still all a load of gibberish because of the lack of sufficient intelligence?
I would be surprised if any monkey made it as far as the end of the word aardvark, but actually all dictionaries have indeed been produced by apes typing on keyboards. I think there are more than two of them working for Oxford University Press though.Stuart
Now try to imagine the dictionary being typed out by no apes at all. Imagine it just happening. That is your theory of how the universe came to be. No intelligence, plan, thought, knowledge.Just happened.
It is funny how mankind can do amazing things create all kinds of machines that poorly mimic nature, yet many are also willing to throw away any common sense and say that the awesome universe is the product of nothing or at least something that possess no life or intelligence.
Atheism has got to be one of the greatest forms of blindness. In fact so blind that Atheists cannot even see their own depraved condition nor how foolish they really are for believing that everything didn't come from a source that possess intelligence and life.
Atheists appear to take comfort in one another's words and doctrines, but common sense and logic defies their faith.
Stuart,
Do me a favor today, today is my birthday I am 39 (again) and since I am the princess, I ask things of the ones that are special to me.
Good thoughts, good deeds and good words from you today to all that you meet, know and converse with.
Extra hugs/kisses for the ones you love, extra treats for your cat.
Take care of yourself big ape, randomly I love you.
PofthK
One more thing Stuart, if you can manage it, buy flowers for a women you do not care for very much.
Well off to work, some of us cannot hang out in the trees all day, swinging from vines.
JustAskin
Quote Stu, was it you or me that was watching? You seem to want to tell me what I saw and heard…is that wise, isn't that indoctrination of a sort? Even the presenter talking with him looked on with doubt,, 'So you are saying that the eye evolved by chance', 'Oh, yes, that's how it happened', said the walkin' talkin' Dawkin'
What was the name of the show?Quote Hold a bag of clear liquid in front of a pinhole camera…hey, upside down image, muddy clear. Make the liquid solid but just as clear, hey clearer image. The octopus has the clearest vision of all equatic animals, Eagles, the sharpest of birds, mankind, the most sophisticated (through brain analysis).
He says, it evolved to help detect food, prey and predators. Why? Why the complexity of the eye?
Electrical detection like with sharks is far more effecient in water and the waters can be as muddy as you like and it still works. Eyes are not so good then, and in the dark.The Walkin' never says 'why'
… He only says 'how'
Is he he shy?
Ooh, that's catty, meow.No, it's because that's all science can do. Say how things came about and what might be.
Science never says 'why'.
No, stop there…i hear ya'
I mean the 'Big Question WHY' not the 'why of the how and where'. See, that is all amusement for 'child like ones'.
An adult, mature mind, says, 'WHY did it happen at all? Why did it happen in the first place?', and, 'if there is no 'fat-controller (sorry God, couldn't resist)', who or what determines the overall course of things seen and unseen, made, unmade and yet to be made?'
That is a severely unsatisfactory use of a highly intelligent creation.
Let’s try and tease your rant apart and see if there is a valid “why” question there.Quote 'WHY did it happen at all? Why did it happen in the first place?'
Nope, still nothing there. Why did WHAT happen? Do you mean why did the universe come into being?
What is wrong with the answer “Because that is what spontaneously happens”? There is no fact that contradicts this as a valid answer. If the answer does not satisfy you then perhaps you need to consider why you are so desperate to have an answer that includes Imaginary Friends (of whatever girth). What if there is no such thing as gods? There is no concrete reason to believe they exist, except gods of the gaps as placeholders for explanations yet to be determined, but those god concepts are by their very nature empty. The “best” theologians, and the deist ones especially who demand the very least of others in terms of believing things that ‘ain’t so’ ask the question in this form: “Why is there anything at all?”. This becomes meaningless when you ask “Why should there not be something?”. Do you have an answer to that? If not, perhaps your WHY question is meaningless.Do you mean “Why did life come into being?” Once again, what is wrong with the answer “that’s what matter (and particularly carbon) does spontaneously”? If you can completely explain HOW life came into being (and we just about can), and the explanation does not involve any divine conspiracies, then why would you be desperate to include one? Do you mean why should these processes be spontaneous, then you are really asking what the word spontaneous means. I think that question might be what Hawking is getting closer to answering: there are laws of thermodynamics that define the meaning of spontaneous, and Hawking is suggesting that the birth of the universe was governed by the same laws as we observe today, in which case it would be the dispersal of energy and matter that is the indicator of “spontaneous”, and perhaps its definition.
We have every element that can be made by combining up to 92 protons with 92 electrons (plus a few more we have made in laboratories). Those combinations, for various reasons to do with sphere geometry, give us a range of different chemistries across the periodic table. There are a few elements that can form bonds between two atoms of the same element, but none is quite as good as carbon. This is a fundamental requirement of life as we know it (the ability of carbon to form long, structural chains) that exists just because all possible combinations of protons and electrons have been tried. So carbon gives no sign that it has been designed specifically for this, it just turns out that the convergence of chemical properties in that part of the periodic table give rise to this particular ability. So, to look again at the why is there life question, if the rest of the chemistry of life is the same in nature as that of “try all possibilities” of carbon, which it appears to be, then what kind of a designer would you be talking about if you invoked one? A designer that just shakes protons and electrons around until they form life? Sounds like a non-designing designer, or a dying god of the gaps to me.
Quote 'if there is no 'fat-controller (sorry God, couldn't resist)', who or what determines the overall course of things seen and unseen, made, unmade and yet to be made?'
If you wanted a one-word answer I would think “gravity” should top the list. Put that alongside expansion of the universe (why is it expanding faster and faster making more and more matter? I don’t think anyone knows: we would have to know what dark matter is first. Is that a good place to insert a god? You can if you want, but what does it explain?).Quote 'Random selection'…even the meaning of the word 'random' is spurious.
Yes, because Dawkins did not say “random selection”, did he. He said natural selection, which is NOT random.Quote Nothing is 'random'.
Nuclear fission, from the point of view of which nucleus will split next, is random. You could make a perfect random number generator if you could keep track of atomic nucleii.Quote Man says 'random' for what he cannot calculate…ha ha…then later he learns to calculate it and then explain it…ha ha…so it was only 'random' because he didn't know. Things are only random when he doesn't have an answer…ha ha, like in the Superman film when they use charcoal to fill in the last element of the antihero superman, or Jurassic park, where they used frog dna to fill in the missing gene for the dynasaurs. Or the obligatory 'unknown', or 'constant' in an equation. Is it not dangerous if there is no one who actually knows what th
e outcome should be?
Who is there to redress the balance if the 'unknown' or that quiessent constant is wrong? What about latency, when and how is that awakened, random?
“Random”, another Science God?
I have absolutely no idea what you are on about. You have invented a new sport: free ranting.Quote Did i not say that even Athiest believe in God, or 'a God' at the extreme least?
Yes, and you are still wrong.Now how about you have a go: WHY is there anything? HOW do we know you are not just inventing mythology?
More to the point HOW did your god do it, if that is what you intend to invoke. If you cannot answer my HOW question as well as science has done, then why does your WHY question deserve consideration?
Can you really convince us that your WHY questions, whatever they may be, are even valid questions?
Stuart
t8
Quote Now try to imagine the dictionary being typed out by no apes at all. Imagine it just happening.
It never would. The apes in question are just codifying the language that is a useful adaptation for them.Quote That is your theory of how the universe came to be. No intelligence, plan, thought, knowledge. Just happened.
No reason to think there is any. Do you have one that is not just personal incredulity or prior commitment to your Imaginary Friend?Quote It is funny how mankind can do amazing things create all kinds of machines that poorly mimic nature, yet many are also willing to throw away any common sense and say that the awesome universe is the product of nothing or at least something that possess no life or intelligence.
That would be because there is nothing to suggest anything else. The really interesting thing about the recent political invention of “Intelligent Design” is that when you investigate its claims in great detail, all you see is the results of Darwinian natural selection. All they did was highlight just how pervasive the process of evolution by natural selection is, right down to the smallest details of the bacterial flagellum or the biochemistry of the clotting cascade. It is astonishing even to me to see just how fundamental Darwin’s explanation is. Perhaps I should be grateful to the ID proponents for their abject failure, which has given rise to further insights that might have otherwise not been so prominently pubicised.We are already better at engineering than natural selection, although natural selection has had a 4 billion-year head start with biochemistry which will take us some catching up.
Quote Atheism has got to be one of the greatest forms of blindness. In fact so blind that Atheists cannot even see their own depraved condition nor how foolish they really are for believing that everything didn't come from a source that possess intelligence and life.
One religious platitude and one unsupported assertion. It is sad to think that religious believers don’t even build on sand, but instead construct castles in the air.Quote Atheists appear to take comfort in one another's words and doctrines, but common sense and logic defies their faith.
Swapped the order this time: unsupported assertion is followed by religious platitude.Stuart
Quote (princess of the king @ Sep. 30 2010,21:31) Stuart, Do me a favor today, today is my birthday I am 39 (again) and since I am the princess, I ask things of the ones that are special to me.
Good thoughts, good deeds and good words from you today to all that you meet, know and converse with.
Extra hugs/kisses for the ones you love, extra treats for your cat.
Take care of yourself big ape, randomly I love you.
PofthK
One more thing Stuart, if you can manage it, buy flowers for a women you do not care for very much.
Well off to work, some of us cannot hang out in the trees all day, swinging from vines.
I think you should declare a public holiday, and expect birthday greeting from all your subjects, to which I add mine!I think if you were to be given your birthday off, then there are worse ways to spend it than hanging out in trees!
Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 30 2010,19:42) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 30 2010,19:33) 1) You have not convinced me that the word circle should be interpreted as “sphere”, because there are Hebrew words for ball that are used elsewhere by the writer of Isaiah, but not in reference to the shape of the earth; 2) You could think me unreasonably stubborn, but in every case I have given you sound reasons for remaining unconvinced.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1) Please do show this assertion of yours.
2) You saying you don't believe what the FACTS suggest is hardly ‘sound reasoning’?
Hi Stuart,Your assertions are FAKE, aren't they!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Oct. 01 2010,10:39) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 30 2010,19:42) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 30 2010,19:33) 1) You have not convinced me that the word circle should be interpreted as “sphere”, because there are Hebrew words for ball that are used elsewhere by the writer of Isaiah, but not in reference to the shape of the earth; 2) You could think me unreasonably stubborn, but in every case I have given you sound reasons for remaining unconvinced.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1) Please do show this assertion of yours.
2) You saying you don't believe what the FACTS suggest is hardly ‘sound reasoning’?
Hi Stuart,Your assertions are FAKE, aren't they!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No, actually the writer of Isaiah does use a Hebrew word for a sphere in some other discussion, and DOESN'T use a Hebrew word for a ball when discussing the earth.Don't call me a liar unless you can back up the allegation.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 01 2010,11:44) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 01 2010,10:39) Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 30 2010,19:42) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 30 2010,19:33) 1) You have not convinced me that the word circle should be interpreted as “sphere”, because there are Hebrew words for ball that are used elsewhere by the writer of Isaiah, but not in reference to the shape of the earth; 2) You could think me unreasonably stubborn, but in every case I have given you sound reasons for remaining unconvinced.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,1) Please do show this assertion of yours.
2) You saying you don't believe what the FACTS suggest is hardly ‘sound reasoning’?
Hi Stuart,Your assertions are FAKE, aren't they!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No, actually the writer of Isaiah does use a Hebrew word for a sphere in some other discussion, and DOESN'T use a Hebrew word for a ball when discussing the earth.Don't call me a liar unless you can back up the allegation.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,You have the burden of proof on the wrong shoulders!
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd
Isaiah 22:18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball (Duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house.
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle (chûgh or chuwg) of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in
That’s circle as in something scribed with a compass.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
