Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
The machine made random propositions, just as it had been created to do. God (the programmer) decided whether it was good or bad (algorithm). God, did so even before He CREATED the machine, and before he breathed the breath of LIFE into it (software). GOD, being omniscient (sp?) knew the answers to every question, even before they were asked by his creation. Alas, his creation did not posses(sp? spell check thinks it's ok) free will.
The machine created nothing. The machine said how about this? GOD said, nopeth, or yupeth. And so it came to pass according to HIS wishes. Do I hear an AMEN? :-)
This is a lie. Only the MSM article alluded to this study supporting evolution. The Harvard scientists made no such claim. Because some journalist made an ignorant claim it is true? You really WILL believe anything.
That's a lie. Show one quote from these articles from a Harvard scientist saying this will help support evolution. Your *multiple sources* are the SAME SOURCE! They are all the same AP story, word for word! The journalist who wrote this piece is the one who has inserted evolution into it, not the Harvard scientists. Why must you Lie for the Lord? It is not even a good lie.
Who's going to win the Superbowl? The Oscar? The Nobel Prize? Why care? Ultimately All is vanity (I think somebody said that once).
But we're on a journey, no reason we can't have fun on the way.
In spite of this awareness of fate, or perhaps because of it, the picture of man's quslities which emerges from the myths is a noble one. The gods are heroic figures, men writ large, who led dangerous, individualistic lives, yet at the same tome were part of a closeky-knit family group, with a firm sense of values and certain intense loyalties. They would give up their lives rather than surrender these values, but they would fight as long as they could, since life was well worth while.
Men knew the gods whom they served could not give them freedom from danger and calimity, and they did not demand they should. We find in the myths no sense of bitterness at the harshness and unfairness of life, but rather a spirit of heroic resignation: humanity is born to trouble, but courage, adventure, and the wonders of life are matters of thankfulness, to be enjoyed while life is still granted to us.
The great gifts of the gods were readiness to face the world as it was, the luck that sustains men in tight places, and the opportunity to win that glory which alone can outlive death - H R Ellis Davidson Scandinavian Mythology
How's this for the title then?
"Evolution-The Origin of All Species Except One, And Don't Think That I'm Explaining That One, Because I'm NOT!"
BTTT
Worse, it's a first draft essay: no rewrites allowed.
Kind've like the article at the top of this thread, then.
"Why are you getting so upset?"
Because you are lying.
"Come on now, I'm relying on multiple sources and you MUST accept them as absolutely true because *I* believe them and the authors agree with me. The media publications are from professional organizations so that is irrefutable proof that you are wrong and I am right."
No, they weren't multiple sources, they were the same source. But you are a practiced liar for the Lord, so why should that stop you.
You got caught in a lie and now are trying to turn it around. Pathetic.
"And let me assure you of one more thing, God is big enough that he doesn't need me to lie for him"
And yet you try.
"I'm sorry you're so fixated on religion, and do you hate religion and God that much that you think I speak for God? "
I don't hate religion, just liars.
oh, I dunno... I think a case can be made for the true machine screw being a fundamental technical innovation which has benefitted the well-being of countless billions of people ;)
"How can challenging the validity of evolution be the end of science?"
You are challenging science with a leap of faith, with a proposition that is supernatural, untestable, unverifiable.
You are free to criticise TOE. You are free to not believe it. But within science, you must adhere to the rules of science. If the fundamental aspects of the scientific method are abandoned, to a leap of faith, science and Reason itself is in fact undermined.
Would you be against teaching ID in another class?
Do you insist ID is science?
Calling the combined scientific community at Harvard University idiots is an absolute Troll Classic, BTW.
I am sure you will be cut and pasted all over the leftist blogosphere to demonstrate how really stupid freepers are.
Well done.
I still think Mr Robinson should have vaporized your a$$.
You have a poor memory. You know, as I have told you before, I'm an atheist... (It is the result of your obvious connection to zealotry in defending of marijuana.)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Humans and apes share a common ancestor; this much is certain from all the available evidence.
No it is not. No “missing link,” no evidence. Dr. Leaky never found any. Humans did not evolve from apes, nor is there evidence, as of yet, of common ancestry, none.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
But thanks for showing your ignorance! :)
Thanks for showing your ignorance! :)
You are a Marxist with a poor memory. That is a typical Marxist response, as is your first quip attacking me as a creationist. Standard Marxist tactics.
Hey its beyond doubt. Here's a certain part that convinces me: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
Evolution is the opiate of the Marxists. It is a theory that is their immaculate conception.
Nope. Sorry, the results were not random. The results occured according to design. The machine was programed to generate hypothetical circuit designs. The algorithm determined if it was a good proposition, or a bad proposition, and that was strictly a function of INTELLIGENT DESIGN with a predestined goal in MIND. If the process had occured manually, with the programmer directing the flow exactly as his algorithms compelled the flow to occur, the results would have been IDENTICAL. It would have taken a lot longer. But the results would have been identical, each and every step of he way. And that fact is due entirely to the INTELLIGENT DESIGN which was directing the flow of the program.
Depending on how the random function generator was "seeded" it is possible for the program to generate exactly the same circuit design, running through all the same sequences, exactly the same, each and every time.
The only thing that was "random" were the proposed circuit elements. But it was INTELLIGENT DESIGN that SELECTED them according to a GOAL. (which, coincidentally, is probably how life works):-)
That would be a more logical title as applied to those who have such a reverence for the religion of evolution.
Evolution is their immaculate conception... you blasphemer, you! ; ^)
That's an insult.
A very ill informed insult from someone who has no idea who he's addressing and what their reasoning for accepting evolution really is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.