> Axiom 3 is the exact point of point of the assumption made.
No, it is not. I can read the proof and see for myself that you are wrong. Others can also read the proof and see for themselves that you are wrong. And further, I wrote the proof, and thus know what it says, and it is not what you claim it says.
Why do you lie so much? Who are you trying to fool? Are you really so stupid that you believe that you can fool the author of the proof when you lie about the proof? It certainly seems like that.
> I am saying that what we call evil is the absence of God. If this is true, then your equation is rendered irrelevant.
So, if my equation is true, then it is irrelevant, according to you.
>In other words genetic information varies only within the existing information in a gene pool--new information cannot be added. Information can only be sorted and rearranged within the population.
You clearly do not know what information is, and how it is created, because if you did, you would have known that new information can be created by rearranging.
Did you know that you lied, or did you really believe that you understood information?
> Your equation rests on the assumption that evil IS something and not the LACK of something.
No, it does not rest on that assumption at all. You clearly do not understand the proof at all, while you arrogantly believe that you do. Your claim is directly contradicted by Axiom 3.
Why do you christians lie so much, like you did just now? Or did you actually believe that you understood the proof?
I have a number of old laptops lying around. It would be nice to use them for embedded systems. Linux is too big to fit. I guess Minix has too few drivers. What to do? Any recommendations?
What if we made a gargantuan database of prior art?
Not just actual prior art, but new art? We could use some sort of generator to make millions or billions of inventions. It should be possible to cover almost all obvious inventions this way.
>It is rare to see such ignorance on/. Oh wait, it isn't.:)
It is not ignorance, but experience through many years. You judged me badly. It seems you are a bad judge of people.
>You are misinformed. ID is not held by "dumb religionists" >but some pretty smart people.
That is what you all say, but you people never substantiate that claim, and when you try, you fail.
>Had you been following >current events you would know the former atheist > (probably the best well-known critic of Theism in > general) Anthony Flew jumped ship and is now a Deist.
Never heard of him, so he is not that well known.
Lets see.... He is 81 years old, and one of his arguments for a non christian god is:"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,"
At 81 years it is usual to find it inordinatly difficult to think. Personally, at 39, I do not find it difficult to think about constructing that stuff.
As for Gerald Schroeder: The first thing I noted on the URL you supplied, is that Gerald pretends to know Quantum Physics. As a quantum physicist, I was not duped.
>There are differences between some products of >evolution and intelligent design (human engineering). >Accumulating many small locally improving changes can >be worse than designing from scratch.
Yes, but some times evolution does it better than humans, such as the fluid dynamics of fish, or biochemistry.
Evolution and humans are two very different intelligences, and will thus do quite different designs.
>In response to your two issues, I as a Christian do not >have a problem in saying that evolution may have been >the vehicle that was used by God to develop the species >of animals originally in the garden. However, I do believe >that God placed the two humans, Adam and Eve, there >in the s.............
>...even National Geographic says the fossil record is a movie with 999 out of every 1000 frames missing. ID is simply a response to scientism's refusal to keep evolution as the untested hypothesis that it truly is.
One frame in 1000 is still a very big number of frames. You do not need more than one frame of Charlies Angels to show that Cameron Diaz was in the movie.
By this, I mean that the process of evolution is a thinking intelligent process. Or to state it another way: Evolution is intelligent.
This means that all signs of evolution also will be signs of intelligent design, simply because evolution is a form of intelligence.
So, instead of the intelligence reciding in the metaphysical head of a super natural being called God, it resides in DNA and their interactions with the world through life and death.
All this according to the Kolmogorov Complexity definition of intelligence.
Intelligence is the process of rationally building and testing theories about the world, and then using those theories for useful stuff. DNA is mutated, recombined, merged through sex, and otherwise changed. These changes are hypotheses about the world, in the form of new life forms trying to survive there. Thus life forms which do not reproduce are falsified hypotheses. The useful stuff is survival.
As for those people preaching intelligent design:
They are all religious, and do not know what theories or evolution are. They just pretend and believe they know. Remembering this, they are easily exposed, as long as you yourself really know what theories and evoution are.
When one tests for randomness, pseudo random generators can often get scores higher than true randomness. One example of this is cyclic feedback registers, where all numbers will be used exactly one time before they repeat.
So, Pi getting a lower score may very well be because Pi is more random, not less.
I just looked at the patents, and both use 2 "layers" of transducers. Other obvious ways of screaming to the neurons are using just one layer of transducers, or 3, or non-layered transducers, or not have the layers behind each other.
I admit that having 2 layers seem to make the implementation and computational costs lower, which is good.
I hereby grant anyone licence to use these ideas, or use them as prior art.
If you define science to be the study of nature by asking nature questions, then math and engineering is not science. But that is a silly definition.
If one instead define science to be the study of whatever can be studiet, with such scientific methods as falsification and use of Ockhams Razor, then math is provable scientific, as there are parts of math that can only be studied scientifically, because they are beyond proofs.
As for engineering: It is a symbiont of science. Asking nature questions today require engineering, and engineering requires science. Thus, engineering is in practice a part of science.
a) You are not allowed to reverse engineer it, and thus cannot find out if there is patented technology inside it.
b) If there is patented technolody inside it, you are guilty of patent infringement.
This sounds like a method for legal framing: Just fool someone into using, selling, or importing a device, and then prosecute them for either a) or b).
A smart inventor is smart enough to know that he will not be rewarded for doing excellent work that the company can profit from. What is the smart thing to do in circumstances like that?
To maximise earnings, make the company believe that you are valuable and on the verge of a major breakthrough all the time, and make it difficult for others to take over by obfuscating and misrepresenting the results. Never actually finish the project, as that will make you unemployed. And if you get unemployed anyway, wait out the contract, and work on the same thing for another company, or by yourself.
What would the world be like if smart inventors did this? It would be full of interesting projects that never completes, or just barely work but is soon taken over by a better competitor. And this is indeed exactly what we see happening in the world.
For the record, I also have a degree in physics, M.Sc. We physicists know that statistics can be used to find small effects among other larger effects.
Do you have anything besides belief, to support the opinion that this test of prayer was insufficiently sensitive?
Slashdot Mirror
> Axiom 3 is the exact point of point of the assumption made.
No, it is not. I can read the proof and see for myself that you are wrong.
Others can also read the proof and see for themselves that you are wrong.
And further, I wrote the proof, and thus know what it says, and it is not
what you claim it says.
Why do you lie so much? Who are you trying to fool? Are you really so
stupid that you believe that you can fool the author of the proof when
you lie about the proof? It certainly seems like that.
> I am saying that what we call evil is the absence of God. If this is true, then your equation is rendered irrelevant.
So, if my equation is true, then it is irrelevant, according to you.
Kim0
>In other words genetic information varies only within the existing information in a gene pool--new information cannot be added. Information can only be sorted and rearranged within the population.
You clearly do not know what information is, and how it is created, because if you did, you would have known that new information can be created by rearranging.
Did you know that you lied, or did you really believe that you understood information?
Kim0
>God did not create evil.
Obviously, since God never existed.
> Your equation rests on the assumption that evil IS something and not the LACK of something.
No, it does not rest on that assumption at all. You clearly do not understand the proof at all, while you arrogantly believe that you do. Your claim is directly contradicted by Axiom 3.
Why do you christians lie so much, like you did just now? Or did you actually believe that you understood the proof?
Kim0
A proof that God does not exist:
http://www.pvv.org/~kim/Bevis.html
So there, now you know that God does not exist,
and therefore cannot have created life.
And Darwin was right.
Kim0
Cubicled employers are similar to boxed lab animals, which had simple brains and no brain growth.
In other words: The currently fashionable cube farms with stress make the programmers stupider.
This just goes to verify my theory:
The purpose of work environment is to subjugate people, not to produce.
I have a number of old laptops lying around. It would be nice to use them for embedded systems. Linux is too big to fit. I guess Minix has too few drivers. What to do? Any recommendations?
Kim0
People lie when threatened or hurt by a baseball bat. That is a quite strong bias.
Kim0
What if we made a gargantuan database of prior art?
Not just actual prior art, but new art? We could use some sort of generator to make millions or billions of inventions. It should be possible to cover almost all obvious inventions this way.
Kim0
>It is rare to see such ignorance on /. Oh wait, it isn't. :)
It is not ignorance, but experience through many years. You judged me badly. It seems you are a bad judge of people.
>You are misinformed. ID is not held by "dumb religionists"
>but some pretty smart people.
That is what you all say, but you people never substantiate that claim, and when you try, you fail.
>Had you been following
>current events you would know the former atheist
> (probably the best well-known critic of Theism in
> general) Anthony Flew jumped ship and is now a Deist.
Never heard of him, so he is not that well known.
Lets see.... He is 81 years old, and one of his arguments for a non christian god is:"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism,"
At 81 years it is usual to find it inordinatly difficult to think. Personally, at 39, I do not find it difficult to think about constructing that stuff.
As for Gerald Schroeder:
The first thing I noted on the URL you supplied, is that Gerald pretends to know Quantum Physics. As a quantum physicist, I was not duped.
Kim0
>There are differences between some products of
>evolution and intelligent design (human engineering).
>Accumulating many small locally improving changes can
>be worse than designing from scratch.
Yes, but some times evolution does it better than humans, such as the fluid dynamics of fish, or biochemistry.
Evolution and humans are two very different intelligences, and will thus do quite different designs.
Kim0
>In response to your two issues, I as a Christian do not
>have a problem in saying that evolution may have been
>the vehicle that was used by God to develop the species
>of animals originally in the garden. However, I do believe
>that God placed the two humans, Adam and Eve, there
>in the s.............
That is just something you believe.
Kim0
>...even National Geographic says the fossil record is a movie with 999 out of every 1000 frames missing. ID is simply a response to scientism's refusal to keep evolution as the untested hypothesis that it truly is.
One frame in 1000 is still a very big number of frames. You do not need more than one frame of Charlies Angels to show that Cameron Diaz was in the movie.
Kim0
>Otherwise you are redefining the terms and arguing from there - not the clearest way to argue.
So, I am redefining the term "intelligent design" by pointing out that evolution can design intelligently.
Kim0
Look at this:
jnvÇ=ïÆT&ð;¥¾KÃü?xG/U4ÌJñ5î90o9B2ÁEiØÆØ
Definitely complex.
It was generated randomly.
Random stuff is complex. Therefore, randomnes could have made complex stuff.
Kim0
By this, I mean that the process of evolution is a thinking intelligent process. Or to state it another way: Evolution is intelligent.
This means that all signs of evolution also will be signs of intelligent design, simply because evolution is a form of intelligence.
So, instead of the intelligence reciding in the metaphysical head of a super
natural being called God, it resides in DNA and their interactions with the
world through life and death.
All this according to the Kolmogorov Complexity definition of intelligence.
Intelligence is the process of rationally building and testing theories about
the world, and then using those theories for useful stuff. DNA is mutated,
recombined, merged through sex, and otherwise changed. These changes are
hypotheses about the world, in the form of new life forms trying to survive
there. Thus life forms which do not reproduce are falsified hypotheses. The
useful stuff is survival.
As for those people preaching intelligent design:
They are all religious, and do not know what theories or evolution are. They
just pretend and believe they know. Remembering this, they are easily exposed,
as long as you yourself really know what theories and evoution are.
Kim0
When one tests for randomness, pseudo random generators can often get scores higher than true randomness. One example of this is cyclic feedback registers, where all numbers will be used exactly one time before they repeat.
So, Pi getting a lower score may very well be because Pi is more random, not less.
Kim0
I just looked at the patents, and both use 2 "layers" of transducers. Other obvious ways of screaming to the neurons are using just one layer of transducers, or 3, or non-layered transducers, or not have the layers behind each other.
I admit that having 2 layers seem to make the implementation and computational costs lower, which is good.
I hereby grant anyone licence to use these ideas, or use them as prior art.
If one instead define science to be the study of whatever can be studiet, with such scientific methods as falsification and use of Ockhams Razor, then math is provable scientific, as there are parts of math that can only be studied scientifically, because they are beyond proofs. As for engineering: It is a symbiont of science. Asking nature questions today require engineering, and engineering requires science. Thus, engineering is in practice a part of science.
Kim0
So, If you have bought, use, or sell a device:
a) You are not allowed to reverse engineer it, and thus cannot find out if there is patented technology inside it.
b) If there is patented technolody inside it, you are guilty of patent infringement.
This sounds like a method for legal framing:
Just fool someone into using, selling, or importing a device, and then prosecute them for either a) or b).
Kim0
Wow! That legalese from IBM was much clearer and simpler to understand than the GPL legalese. I am impressed!
Kim0
A smart inventor is smart enough to know that he will not be rewarded for doing excellent work that the company can profit from. What is the smart thing to do in circumstances like that?
To maximise earnings, make the company believe that you are valuable and on the verge of a major breakthrough all the time, and make it difficult for others to take over by obfuscating and misrepresenting the results. Never actually finish the project, as that will make you unemployed. And if you get unemployed anyway, wait out the contract, and work on the same thing for another company, or by yourself.
What would the world be like if smart inventors did this? It would be full of interesting projects that never completes, or just barely work but is soon taken over by a better competitor. And this is indeed exactly what we see happening in the world.
Kim0
Sometimes, a real quantum physicist is going to use his 5 moderator point on this thread. Sometime is now. Better get started.
So, what you say, is that almost all prayer is unnecessary because somebody else is already praying.
Do you have any method for testing this?
I guess not.
If the effect cannot be seen at all, then there is no reason to think it exists. So all you have is belief, no knowledge.
For the record, I also have a degree in physics, M.Sc. We physicists know that statistics can be used to find small effects among other larger effects.
Do you have anything besides belief, to support the opinion that this test of prayer was insufficiently sensitive?
I guess not.