The evolution of computers

Originally posted by KellyJay
Does a test we cannot prove right or wrong change because we can
also use another test we cannot prove right or wrong, independently?
It is more of the same, the conclusions may be right, they may be
wrong, it is still unknown and cannot be taken as completely true
since something new could change the results tomorrow. You are
quite welcome to believe what you will though, call it a fact if you
desire to.
Kelly

You could not be sure that the ruler you measured that string with was correct, and yet you yourself proclaimed its length to be a fact. You verified it with other rulers, made in different factories by different people, but you couldn't be sure if they were correct either. You do know, however that to get the same reading from two sources independantly makes it more likely to be true. It's the same with science. The first time someone measures something it's an estimate. So too, the second time. Once it's been measured many times independantly, using a variety of methods and all the results stack up it becomes a fact.

Stop trying to reduce science to the same level as your bible.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I see, so there is nothing, and I mean nothing that could be
lurking out there that could make your conclusions wrong?
You are so sure this is true; you have no doubt what so ever
that no one has made a mistake about anything, or some piece
of data will not alter your findings into being something other
than what you think they are? I’m impressed with your faith
it is blind but strong! You have reality all figured out, it is
impressive!
Kelly

I don't know what kind of pedistal you are trying to put science on here. Scientists will be the first people to tell you we don't know everything, we need to investigate more.

That doesn't mean that we know nothing however. Your bible claims to be the ultimate authority, and yet is factually wanting.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Now, perhaps you could show me something specifically wrong with my analogy?

I may not understand fully your analogy (it's late) but I disagree that technological evolution driven by economic goals is a good metaphor for evolution.

The stochasticity involved in an evolutionary process of such a technology would be much lower than in genetic evolution. The product designers are attempting to 'evolve' the product and this involves more than a random process. Note that this is before the selection process.

It looks more like a metaphor of a series of non-omniscient gods attempting to evolve by intelligent (non-omniscient) design and then proceeding to test them through 'natural' selection. I know this sentence wasn't clear, what I'm trying to say is that I read it as a mix of decentralized ID and natural selection.

Edit - I did like the separate organs evolution part of it, though.

Originally posted by KellyJay
He can, I cannot.
Kelly

How?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
How?

Read about it.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I don't know what kind of pedistal you are trying to put science on here. Scientists will be the first people to tell you we don't know everything, we need to investigate more.

That doesn't mean that we know nothing however. Your bible claims to be the ultimate authority, and yet is factually wanting.

I don't have a problem with people saying they don't know everything,
just where they are calling something a factual when it isn't. Going
back to the difference between measuring an inch between two points
with a ruler, and taking a radiometric reading. One is simply taking
the reading with the ruler, the inch is defined by the ruler; while the
other requires a translation of data into years. Since years is the time
it takes the earth to complete its trip around the sun, the radiometric
reading is not the same thing!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't have a problem with people saying they don't know everything,
just where they are calling something a factual when it isn't. Going
back to the difference between measuring an inch between two points
with a ruler, and taking a radiometric reading. One is simply taking
the reading with the ruler, the inch is defined by the ruler; while the
other ...[text shortened]... h to complete its trip around the sun, the radiometric
reading is not the same thing!
Kelly

Nope. Poor logic. You are therefore saying that measuring the string with a scale ruler and then converting the distance is not valid. That's just plain dumb.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Nope. Poor logic. You are therefore saying that measuring the string with a scale ruler and then converting the distance is not valid. That's just plain dumb.

I guess we disagree.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess we disagree.
Kelly

We all agree...you're just plain dumb.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't have a problem with people saying they don't know everything,
just where they are calling something a factual when it isn't. Going
back to the difference between measuring an inch between two points
with a ruler, and taking a radiometric reading. One is simply taking
the reading with the ruler, the inch is defined by the ruler; while the
other ...[text shortened]... h to complete its trip around the sun, the radiometric
reading is not the same thing!
Kelly

Firstly, what is a fact? What is your definition of the word?
A year was origionally based on the earths trip around the sun, but that is not the time measurement used for radiometric dating. However it doesnt change the fact that the measurement is accurate. In fact the time it takes the earth to go round the sun varies over time and that variation can be measured. Various effects due to the earths orbit can also be used to verify the accuracy of other dating techniques such as radiometric dating.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Firstly, what is a fact? What is your definition of the word?
A year was origionally based on the earths trip around the sun, but that is not the time measurement used for radiometric dating. However it doesnt change the fact that the measurement is accurate. In fact the time it takes the earth to go round the sun varies over time and that variation can ...[text shortened]... t can also be used to verify the accuracy of other dating techniques such as radiometric dating.

I wear glasses because I cannot see close up, others have to wear
them because they cannot see far off. How do you know that what
you going to get an accurate reading from ages long gone by
knowing that when you start applying your tests to something that
is giving you those numbers you could be running into variables
that you are not aware of?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Firstly, what is a fact? What is your definition of the word?
A year was origionally based on the earths trip around the sun, but that is not the time measurement used for radiometric dating. However it doesnt change the fact that the measurement is accurate. In fact the time it takes the earth to go round the sun varies over time and that variation can ...[text shortened]... t can also be used to verify the accuracy of other dating techniques such as radiometric dating.

For me taking that reading with the ruler produced a fact according to
the ruler.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I wear glasses because I cannot see close up

Yes, that does seem to be the problem, doesn't it.