Posted on 12/01/2005 10:55:04 AM PST by curiosity
Edited on 12/01/2005 11:11:54 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Anything else would be a mythtake.
WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond
Are you still reading that same book? Either that's a deep book or you're a slow reader. When you put your reading list in your tagline you should change it every day just to keep folks wondering. ;-)
Goodnight, and God bless.
LOL!!
Wolf
LOL, I know. I'm supposed to be reading it for recreation, but it's a slow slog. Voyage of the Beagle was more of a page-turner. Maybe because Unix seems like such a Bizarro world to this longtime Windows coder. It's like reading about the history & culture of a totally foreign country. Interesting, but slow.
No, just paraphrasing. I don't remember the exact name they gave to it, but the general idea was that kids would learn math better if only they would feel better about themselves.
Sorry to hear that. My condolences to his family.
Look, Jenny, normally I'd be perfectly fine with the admission of ignorance--which is the start of all knowledge, after all. But given that one of the primary objections to the scientific nature of ID theory is that it does not say just who the Designer is, I'm not of a mind to cut you guys any slack here.If ID isn't scientific because it does not contain all the answers, then neither is evolution; you can't have it both ways.
But the two are not comparable. If the ToE refused to theorize any mechanisms for evolution, then it'd be equivalent to ID. Evolution puts forth random mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, the mathematics of small vs. large populations, etc. These are meaty mechanisms that can be tested & falsified. Meanwhile ID refuses to engage in "designer-centric" theorizing, saying that it should be enough to claim that some unknown designer or designers, for some unknown reason, using some unknown methodology, with some unknown level of competence or experience, put some design in there somewhere. It's as if Darwin claimed that all living things were related somehow, but declared it to be off-limits for some reason to speculate how they came to be related.
But how would you know the object is a "tablet", and that whatever squiggles you see on its surface is "writing"?Now you get into the true scientific question of ID theory: What differentiates an object that has been created or acted upon from one which has been shaped by natural forces? Is there a definite, mathematical way to define design, or is it just a matter of instinctively knowing the difference? And which does life fall under?
So far, ID deals mostly with the mathematical odds of an object being in its current form due to natural shaping or intellegent design. But given that the theory itself is in its infancy, I wouldn't be surprised to find some new insights and techniques and models develop over time.
In the meantime, can you tell the difference between a sheer granite cliff and a worked stone wall? Can you tell the difference between a simple weathered rock and one which has been carved with symbols or shapes by a tool? Can you do so even without a scientific criteria?
The answer depends on whether I am familiar with the properties of granite and the methods & styles of human-made sculpture. Our point (ever since Hume, I think) is that any time you point to something and say, "that's designed", you're implicitly saying, "that has features that I already know are associated with human design & manufacturing, and tend not to crop up in things I'm pretty certain weren't designed, so it's a safe bet that this object was designed too."
Without a pre-existing body of knowledge of things that are similar in some way to the unknown object that you already know have been designed by an intelligence, you simply cannot say whether the thing under examination is designed by an intelligence or not.
Intelligent beings can create things that are very regular...
The thing is, natural processes can produce sequences with the same mathematical characteristics as these! The only interesting question is, how many sequences are there that are meaningful in some way in some context? But I've seen nothing by Dembski, certainly, that honestly attempts to answer that question, nor anyone else from the ID camp.
But I do know that the smallest known self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long, and I know that RNA strands can self-catalyze, though I don't know how long they are or how specific their sequences need to be to work. But the answers will come from biochemistry, not mathematics. Certainly not from Dembski's math.
To bring it back to your object on the Moon, what if the "characters" on the tablet were transliterated to this sequence:
h prolhectals ell venes tracy ing spabity ber unhered up tran hanaparietrowns f ed hed hidics woroblighue re unprears oze machians auties cous frany ren laskefe habes ealteed econ spones sings buousiver gralible charl exacharve popettincy a pthninias addely lious plicstions ing spre fier primizies routhily ge
A mathematician could determine how random it is, but do you really expect Dembski or any other ID theorist to come up with a mathematical test that could distinguish whether it's a message of some kind vs. gibberish? I just don't see how it's theoretically possible.
Well said.
strictly speaking, humans ARE apes.
Modern ones, different from the other modern apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, gorillas) in the same way that those others are different from each other.
All the modern apes descended from earlier apes.
At some point, all the modern apes came from a single common ancestral species of early ape. Indeed, there is evidence that all modern apes carry genetic information from several common ancestral individuals.
Farther back, the apes share common ancestry with the other major branches of Primates (monkeys, etc...).
For the life of me, I cannot comprehend why so many people find this so very objectionable.
There is a small point there...kids do learn better if they are confident they have the skills to learn, which is not the same as self esteem.
Wouldn't they get more self-esteem if they knew more math?
Just venting.
The problem with Creationism is not that it isn't true, or it could never be true. It may very well be. In fact creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive either, I don't know why people fight over it. If in fact we were created then the Creator may have programmed us to evolve and better adapt ourselves to our environement as it keeps changing.
The problem with the creationist approach in the scientific community is that it stops abruptly with God/Creator and provides no explanation beyond that. You might argue that its a matter of faith but that argument does not hold water with scientists. There is no rational explanation for who/what it is, how it came into existence, why its there, why it creates, destroys..etc and not to forget the countless inconsistencies and self defeating arguments that follow if you go down that path. Scientists don't like that.
I think the whole negative notion of us being "descended" (pun intended) from monkeys (see paragraph 1 remember) by a lot of people is what turns them off. The higher status that we confer on humans being "animals with conscious thought" contributes to this. Creationists would rather be descended from "Adam" rather than the same ancestor that say something like an aye-aye had.:)
I've often wondered if a dumb pygmy chimpanzee eating too much fruit would be a banana bonobo bozo. hehe.
Remember, I'm not trying to push any points or argue here, just stating my perceptions. I'm not trying to run anyone down. AAAAAAAHHHHH SPLAT! Oh crap! I think I just hit Mothman (or was that Richard Gere?).
You stated that your particular favorite bible verse is the anchor of every single Christian's faith. I'm not surprised you didn't even attempt to lend credit to this odd idea.
No, what I stated is up above. That being my belief that God created the universe and all that resides in it. I further stated that Jesus is the son of God and unless one believes in God, one cannot believe that He sent his Son to this little ole planet. I thought I was clear but evidently not.
I'm not surprised you didn't even attempt to lend credit to this odd idea.
I am surprised you don't have the wherewithal to follow the logic. Surprise, surprise.
you better hope the creationists don't abandon the republican party or your "current electoral success" will go up in smoke. your "current electoral success" is really our "current electoral success" the coattails of which you are riding (krauthammer and will not withstanding). all government is religion applied to economics. fortunately our founders believed that all men are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights. think about it.
That being my belief that God created the universe and all that resides in it. I further stated that Jesus is the son of God and unless one believes in God, one cannot believe that He sent his Son to this little ole planet.
Sure it is. Genesis 1:1 states in part, " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." which is equivalent to "That being my belief that God created the universe and all that resides in it."
I then stated that "If you don't believe those words, you certainly can not have any belief in a Son of God." which is equivalent to "I further stated that Jesus is the son of God and unless one believes in God, one cannot believe that He sent his Son to this little ole planet."
My intent was clear, unless one believes a priori in the God of Abraham, believing in a Son of God is not possible.
You may if you wish attempt to prove that assertion wrong but thus far you haven't put a dent in it.
Unless you think that only people who believe that Genesis 1:1 is the most important verse in the bible believe in God.
:-} Still no dent.
Of course, you're also equivocating, because one who believes in a god who originally created all energy in the universe does not necessarily believe in the "creationism" (i.e., non-evolutionary origin of species) you referenced originally.
Now you've constructed a strawdog based on nothing I've said. I leave you to debate that with yourself.
I repeat, being a Christian requires being a creationist in the true sense of the word described in Genesis 1:1.
yes it was.
Fairly deep. The Art of Unix Programming
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.