06 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarAll beliefs rest on assumptions of some sort and, consequently have some
I don't. The difference here is that I'm not trying to force my circular beliefs on you. I'd be happy if everyone just admitted that their views on this matter are based on circular arguments and are simply beliefs.
sort of ultimate circularity. That doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally
credible.
The beliefs that we call knowledge are the ones we can demonstrate have a
certain amount of credibility. That's what the scientific method is: the establishing
of a particular hypothesis' credibility by testing.
So, simply because one can reduce certain beliefs to circularity doesn't mean
they deserve equal attention or respect.
Further, the claim that matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed is
not a circular one, it's a tested one.
The circularity that you seem fixated on is simply the possibility that the
universe is just a part of a cycle, just like today is part of a cycle of days.
Nemesio
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by Eladar*shrug*
You are a piece of work. I have no wish to beat a dead horse. Everything I have to say and have explained is in my conversation with Joe Shmo. Go back and read it if you wish. If not, that's fine too.
You've answered questions that no one asked and ignored the points that
others raised.
If you are so terrified at challenging your own beliefs, maybe you should
consider participating in a forum that only seeks to reaffirm your positions
rather than people with differing frameworks.
Otherwise, you're just wasting the time of the people who think you're actually
approaching the thread with the intent of dialogue and discussion.
Nemesio
06 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJay… It was told, or it was written into the code what it was supposed to do, . ..…
It was told, or it was written into the code what it was supposed to do,
and once you execute the code it does what it was programmed to do.
It will abide by all the conditions setup within the code, if you do not
see that about any program there is little hope for us to go beyond
yes it is and no it doesn't.
Kelly
What it was “told” to do would be nothing more than how to perform one cycle of an iteration and then just keep repeatedly cycles of iteration in a series by taking the output from each cycle and feeding it into the input of the next cycle -that is how a computer simulations of evolution would work.
According to: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/iteration “iteration” in computer science means:
“The process of repeating a set of instructions a specified number of times or until a specific result is achieved”
And each time the set of instructions is run on the data that has come out of the last time the set of instructions was run, we call that completing a “single iterative cycle”.
I leaned about computer simulations when I did several advanced computer programming courses at university so I know exactly what I am talking about here
-I am an EXPERT at this and you are clearly NOT and I am telling you that the programs for computer simulations do NOT have anywhere in their code what the outcome should be (as you implied) else there would be no point in the simulation -so do you still deny this fact? -if so, you are simply denying a basic fact about computer science that every professional programmer would tell you is true simply because what the simulations show go against your religious beliefs.
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonClearly, if you want to tell me that your software doesn't do what you
[b]… It was told, or it was written into the code what it was supposed to do, . ..…
What it was “told” to do would be nothing more than how to perform one cycle of an iteration and then just keep repeatedly cycles of iteration in a series by taking the output from each cycle and feeding it into the input of the next cycle -that is how a compu ...[text shortened]... uld tell you is true simply because what the simulations show go against your religious beliefs.[/b]
program it to do and that is a good thing, I'm impressed at your level
of skills.
Kelly
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJay…if you want to tell me that your software doesn't do what you
Clearly, if you want to tell me that your software doesn't do what you
program it to do and that is a good thing, I'm impressed at your level
of skills.
Kelly
program it to do and that is a good thing,….
No -and the program does do what it’s code tells it to do.
You have appeared to completely changed your “argument” here (although I am not sure if “argument” is the correct word here) -does that mean you have finally acknowledged the fact that programs that perform computer simulations do NOT have the outcome of the simulation written in their code? -your previous “argument” was along the lines that these programs do have that.
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarIt's really funny how on the one hand you think of human beings as being the pinnacle of creation, the bible tells you so, and yet when it comes to solid scientific research, those same humans are so dumb as to warrant your disdain or for the really hard cases, contempt. Nice dichotomy you have going there.
[b]Right now we are in the process of figuring it all out and I am showing you the latest research on the subject.
Figuring out how the very basic building blocks came into existance? Homey don't think so.
A moment when nothing exists, then something is just there doesn't make sense. There is no possible natural explanation for such a thing.[/b]
08 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI have not changed my argument go back and read it!
[b]…if you want to tell me that your software doesn't do what you
program it to do and that is a good thing,….
No -and the program does do what it’s code tells it to do.
You have appeared to completely changed your “argument” here (although I am not sure if “argument” is the correct word here) -does that mean you have finally acknowledge ...[text shortened]... in their code? -your previous “argument” was along the lines that these programs do have that.[/b]
I have been saying that when you program code it does what it is
coded to do, so when someone says they programmed some code
to evolved a creature and they call it proof for evolution I laught at
them. I cry for those that think it is proof, because all they are really
doing is looking a piece of code work out its programming, if they
buy into that junk they are ready for the Koolaid.
Kelly