No one I know says anything of the sort (and I'm a Christian). We say rather that God could have designed whatever He wished, but He chose this specific universe with its certain observable physical constraints for a purpose (see: anthropic principle).
And, the universe He did create is obviously rather dynamic. What makes you think anything about the world you inhabit is "static" besides physical constants (and these physical constants actually pose more of a problem to evolution than to ID)? What do different theories on the origin of the universe have to do with the nature of the universe itself (which is obviously rather dynamic)?
Good luck! [Be forewarned: whatever rules you are able to contrive to exclude ID from science will also necessarily exclude evolution (and any that include evolution will also include ID)].
_God Delusion_ anyone? If God is a delusion, does He exist? I think quite obviously, the intent is to provoke a resounding 'no'. Why *do* athiests have to be so double-minded? You can't have your cake and eat it too--either you are hostile towards God or you aren't.
No one who has seen Dawkins give even a short summary of his work on Colbert Report would doubt his motivation and what his claims of greatness are based on (hint: circular and foolish reasoning). Though Colbert was obviously in his usual character, this was one time that his wit made even his own ally Dawkins look foolish (it's fun when the sword cuts both ways isn't it??).
Also, if you are interested, look up the debates between Hitchens and D'Souza--Hitchens was made quite the fool it seemed to me. I"m sure the results would be the same if Dawkins would step up to the plate.
The reason I said you failed to consider it is because your post sounded like Hinduism contained only a panentheism faction and not also a pantheism one. If you look exclusively at the pantheist camp, then the GP makes more sense--though yes, panentheism may be the more proper 'Hinduism' (I certainly have more fondness for it).;-)
Good points though about Kaballah and the OT. All of the major religions in fact have a lot in common in this respect. It's a shame that more Christians do not recognize that.
As for the Nephalim though--what do they have to do with polytheism? As I understand it, the 'sons of God' were simply fallen angels with physical earthly bodies. Anyone worshipping them would not have been true 'Hebrews' but rather pagan. And, in fact, the Hebrews did not exist until Abraham who came rather a long time after the flood destroyed the Nephalim. If, however, you mean the line of godly men including Enoch and Noah--they were monotheistic and had nothing to do with these or any other 'gods'.
Yep, so if you demarcate science by (among other popular things) falsifiability, then Darwinism is *not* science. At best, it is crackpot pseudo-science.
GP covered both bases. 'God within our time-space-matter-energy universe' is known as pantheism and the clause 'or as a part of it' covers panentheism (which seems to fit your description of Hinduism).
A problem with both of your posts is that you fail to consider that all of the major religions are well represented in both camps (and Hinduism particularly has a somewhat strong pantheist aspect to it as well). I, myself, am a Christian and fall into the panentheism camp (and I do not see how the GP can claim that Christianity does not have room for God within the universe as [at the very least] Jesus came in the flesh and His Spirit remains manifest in the natural world until this day--that's about as much a 'part' of it as you could ask for really;-)).
Regarding the third bullet:
Haven't you heard of the New King James Version? NKJV is exactly what you want.
Regarding the last bullet:
It's quite remarkable that a so-called 'error' in the Septuagint's version of Isaiah mentioned that the messiah would be born to a virgin (not exactly an error but more like an ambiguity introduced in the translation from Hebrew to Greek if I'm not mistaken). Could it be that it was no error at all?;-)
And, I think that when you look at the original Hebrew, the word which the Septuagint translates as virgin is less easily translated that way directly into English (though still reasonably so--i.e., the virgin definition is 3rd or 4th on the list in a Hebrew -> English dictionary).
Well, I think there's a significant portion of ID adherents who believe that aliens planted the 'seed' (hence my link to the panspermia folks).
And, unfortunately (for you it seems) science (and the law for that matter) can only decide on evidence. No matter how much one man hates another, if he did not kill the man, Columbo rules him out based on the evidence--motive is not the only factor.
With the 'god' now removed, it should be possible to impartially address the ID ideas on their own merit, no (or is that not possible given the establishment's philosophical assumptions and prejudice)?
[And, besides, the establishment clause has absolutely nothing to do with this except for the fact that our benches are occupied with ideological sell outs who neither novelly nor innocently use it as an excuse to exclude true 'science' (or should we say critical thinking) from being done in our classrooms].
You must not be familiar with panspermia.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Intelligent design theorists make no assertions about just who the designer(s) is/are.
I wouldn't be so quick to accept his 'explanation' of uranium dating. There are big problems with carbon dating and I'm sure that uranium is not immune either. [For example, geologists and their methods of dating assume that certain rates of decay are constant (or have been for the last umpteen billion years)].
And, one other minor point--
C is not exactly a subset of C++. Ever since C99 brought about new features to C (the specific details of which I do not recall) which C++ does not support (and possibly even before then), they have diverged. It is true though that C is essentially a subset of C++.
It was a slip. I am and was aware that Python is written in C (though I fail to see why really). C++ can do everything C can and better.
And, I disagree with the statement about C programmers being able to program C++. That is just not true. C++ is a multi-paradigm language and C is essentially only a single paradigm--namely, procedural. It is exactly C++'s support for the [obsolete] procedural/structured methodology that would [mis]-lead a C programmer into thinking that they know C++.
Oh, I don't embrace it! In fact, I don't care to ever use C (proper) and I certainly never intend to use C++ as if it were C (that's actually my biggest gripe with C++ currently as recent co-workers do not always agree that high-level design is good and the language [and apparently sound arguments] do nothing to convince them of that).
But, my original point still stands if you substitute 'C' for 'C++'. Heck, I could've even mentioned assembly if we really want to talk perf. Everyone knows that hand-tuned assembly beats everything else, no? But, the point of MapReduce is to provide a high-level abstraction for massive parallelization. And, in fact, it is something that you'd get for free if using a functional language like Haskell or the built-in map and reduce of Python (and, there's quite a bit of Python at Google if I am not mistaken).
In short: the language of the implementation says nothing of the validity of the abstraction. Yes, C++ is the fastest language, but there are times when even it is not fast enough and assembly must be hand-tuned.
" (or the 21st century version: "compilers can perform better optimizations that JIT translators").
Actually, JITters can do some optimizations that compilers can't--by splitting the compilation into a frontend and a backend. The front end is essentially just a parser, and the later the back-end compile happens, the more opportunities for optimizations actually open up (including such things as utilizing specific instruction sets for given architectures and fine tuning the compile based on run time statistics).
You are aware that Python has built in support for map and reduce, no? And that the Python interpreter and most JVMs are written in C++ (not to mention many operating systems). When did the implementation language ever prove the abstraction worthwhile?
Very insightful point. C++ is like a Swiss army knife and those folks who tend to be negative by nature can always find something they don't like about it (much like life and everything else really).
No, it's just that you're not the first person I've heard saying that. Our STL guru at MS repeats the same mantra and so I assume that it must have come from on high (i.e., the committee or Bjarn himself) in that form. I would personally like to see people writing their own code more succinctly as much as (or even more than) using the STL more concisely, but encouraging that might be equivalent to encouraging functional programming in general--something which hasn't caught on quite yet apparently.
'Tight' code is easier to maintain. It requires less effort to read and after all, there's only going to be one writer of your code and n readers.
And, after having used lambdas and closures in other languages (some of which are purely functional), I have a little bit different sense of what is 'killer' apparently.
Yes, STL is awesome. And, using it more concisely is more awesome, but it's the code that I personally write on top of it where I can express elegant simplicity.
C++ has generators, closures, & lambdas. It also has static typing and supports generic programming. And lastly, it supports functional programming.
So, that leaves REPL--there are interpreters for C++ too. However, it's hard to find one that matches your compiler exactly (at least if you're using VC).
Extending the language to suit the domain is achieved (among other things) by operator overloading (take a look at boost for instance). If you want to treat code as data, look at functor (or lambda) dispatch maps (and/or dynamic library loading or even generating, compiling and execing auxillary processes).
And, garbage collection is also done for C++--a quick google search should find a handful of implementations to choose from.
So, what does that leave from your list?
Why does everyone think that 'simplifying the usage of STL algorithms without creating a lot of functors' is the only use for lambdas and closures? What about making your own code tighter by factoring symmetric blocks into one?
Slashdot Mirror
No one I know says anything of the sort (and I'm a Christian). We say rather that God could have designed whatever He wished, but He chose this specific universe with its certain observable physical constraints for a purpose (see: anthropic principle).
And, the universe He did create is obviously rather dynamic. What makes you think anything about the world you inhabit is "static" besides physical constants (and these physical constants actually pose more of a problem to evolution than to ID)? What do different theories on the origin of the universe have to do with the nature of the universe itself (which is obviously rather dynamic)?
Please list the 'rules' that you use to demarcate science from pseudoscience. You might want to take a look at this before formulating your list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
Good luck! [Be forewarned: whatever rules you are able to contrive to exclude ID from science will also necessarily exclude evolution (and any that include evolution will also include ID)].
_God Delusion_ anyone? If God is a delusion, does He exist? I think quite obviously, the intent is to provoke a resounding 'no'. Why *do* athiests have to be so double-minded? You can't have your cake and eat it too--either you are hostile towards God or you aren't.
No one who has seen Dawkins give even a short summary of his work on Colbert Report would doubt his motivation and what his claims of greatness are based on (hint: circular and foolish reasoning). Though Colbert was obviously in his usual character, this was one time that his wit made even his own ally Dawkins look foolish (it's fun when the sword cuts both ways isn't it??).
Also, if you are interested, look up the debates between Hitchens and D'Souza--Hitchens was made quite the fool it seemed to me. I"m sure the results would be the same if Dawkins would step up to the plate.
The reason I said you failed to consider it is because your post sounded like Hinduism contained only a panentheism faction and not also a pantheism one. If you look exclusively at the pantheist camp, then the GP makes more sense--though yes, panentheism may be the more proper 'Hinduism' (I certainly have more fondness for it). ;-)
Good points though about Kaballah and the OT. All of the major religions in fact have a lot in common in this respect. It's a shame that more Christians do not recognize that.
As for the Nephalim though--what do they have to do with polytheism? As I understand it, the 'sons of God' were simply fallen angels with physical earthly bodies. Anyone worshipping them would not have been true 'Hebrews' but rather pagan. And, in fact, the Hebrews did not exist until Abraham who came rather a long time after the flood destroyed the Nephalim. If, however, you mean the line of godly men including Enoch and Noah--they were monotheistic and had nothing to do with these or any other 'gods'.
Yep, so if you demarcate science by (among other popular things) falsifiability, then Darwinism is *not* science. At best, it is crackpot pseudo-science.
GP covered both bases. 'God within our time-space-matter-energy universe' is known as pantheism and the clause 'or as a part of it' covers panentheism (which seems to fit your description of Hinduism).
;-)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
A problem with both of your posts is that you fail to consider that all of the major religions are well represented in both camps (and Hinduism particularly has a somewhat strong pantheist aspect to it as well). I, myself, am a Christian and fall into the panentheism camp (and I do not see how the GP can claim that Christianity does not have room for God within the universe as [at the very least] Jesus came in the flesh and His Spirit remains manifest in the natural world until this day--that's about as much a 'part' of it as you could ask for really
Regarding the third bullet:
;-)
Haven't you heard of the New King James Version? NKJV is exactly what you want.
Regarding the last bullet:
It's quite remarkable that a so-called 'error' in the Septuagint's version of Isaiah mentioned that the messiah would be born to a virgin (not exactly an error but more like an ambiguity introduced in the translation from Hebrew to Greek if I'm not mistaken). Could it be that it was no error at all?
And, I think that when you look at the original Hebrew, the word which the Septuagint translates as virgin is less easily translated that way directly into English (though still reasonably so--i.e., the virgin definition is 3rd or 4th on the list in a Hebrew -> English dictionary).
Well, I think there's a significant portion of ID adherents who believe that aliens planted the 'seed' (hence my link to the panspermia folks).
And, unfortunately (for you it seems) science (and the law for that matter) can only decide on evidence. No matter how much one man hates another, if he did not kill the man, Columbo rules him out based on the evidence--motive is not the only factor.
With the 'god' now removed, it should be possible to impartially address the ID ideas on their own merit, no (or is that not possible given the establishment's philosophical assumptions and prejudice)?
[And, besides, the establishment clause has absolutely nothing to do with this except for the fact that our benches are occupied with ideological sell outs who neither novelly nor innocently use it as an excuse to exclude true 'science' (or should we say critical thinking) from being done in our classrooms].
Also, this:
http://www.panspermia.org/
has a more 'alien' slant to it.
You must not be familiar with panspermia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia Intelligent design theorists make no assertions about just who the designer(s) is/are.
I wouldn't be so quick to accept his 'explanation' of uranium dating. There are big problems with carbon dating and I'm sure that uranium is not immune either. [For example, geologists and their methods of dating assume that certain rates of decay are constant (or have been for the last umpteen billion years)].
Amen to that. [Well, everything but the 'strings' nonsense.]
I think it is the icon you see beside the address in your addressbar (though the similarity to slapshot also occurred to me).
And, one other minor point-- C is not exactly a subset of C++. Ever since C99 brought about new features to C (the specific details of which I do not recall) which C++ does not support (and possibly even before then), they have diverged. It is true though that C is essentially a subset of C++.
It was a slip. I am and was aware that Python is written in C (though I fail to see why really). C++ can do everything C can and better. And, I disagree with the statement about C programmers being able to program C++. That is just not true. C++ is a multi-paradigm language and C is essentially only a single paradigm--namely, procedural. It is exactly C++'s support for the [obsolete] procedural/structured methodology that would [mis]-lead a C programmer into thinking that they know C++.
Oh, I don't embrace it! In fact, I don't care to ever use C (proper) and I certainly never intend to use C++ as if it were C (that's actually my biggest gripe with C++ currently as recent co-workers do not always agree that high-level design is good and the language [and apparently sound arguments] do nothing to convince them of that).
But, my original point still stands if you substitute 'C' for 'C++'. Heck, I could've even mentioned assembly if we really want to talk perf. Everyone knows that hand-tuned assembly beats everything else, no? But, the point of MapReduce is to provide a high-level abstraction for massive parallelization. And, in fact, it is something that you'd get for free if using a functional language like Haskell or the built-in map and reduce of Python (and, there's quite a bit of Python at Google if I am not mistaken).
In short: the language of the implementation says nothing of the validity of the abstraction. Yes, C++ is the fastest language, but there are times when even it is not fast enough and assembly must be hand-tuned.
" (or the 21st century version: "compilers can perform better optimizations that JIT translators").
Actually, JITters can do some optimizations that compilers can't--by splitting the compilation into a frontend and a backend. The front end is essentially just a parser, and the later the back-end compile happens, the more opportunities for optimizations actually open up (including such things as utilizing specific instruction sets for given architectures and fine tuning the compile based on run time statistics).
.NET for that matter--but we're anti-MS around here. :-)
See the LLVM for more info: http://llvm.org/
(or
To most people, C++ is C. :-) Unfortunate but true.
You are aware that Python has built in support for map and reduce, no? And that the Python interpreter and most JVMs are written in C++ (not to mention many operating systems). When did the implementation language ever prove the abstraction worthwhile?
Don't forget C#, but then it's basically an enhanced form of Java.
Very insightful point. C++ is like a Swiss army knife and those folks who tend to be negative by nature can always find something they don't like about it (much like life and everything else really).
No, it's just that you're not the first person I've heard saying that. Our STL guru at MS repeats the same mantra and so I assume that it must have come from on high (i.e., the committee or Bjarn himself) in that form. I would personally like to see people writing their own code more succinctly as much as (or even more than) using the STL more concisely, but encouraging that might be equivalent to encouraging functional programming in general--something which hasn't caught on quite yet apparently.
'Tight' code is easier to maintain. It requires less effort to read and after all, there's only going to be one writer of your code and n readers. And, after having used lambdas and closures in other languages (some of which are purely functional), I have a little bit different sense of what is 'killer' apparently. Yes, STL is awesome. And, using it more concisely is more awesome, but it's the code that I personally write on top of it where I can express elegant simplicity.
C++ has generators, closures, & lambdas. It also has static typing and supports generic programming. And lastly, it supports functional programming. So, that leaves REPL--there are interpreters for C++ too. However, it's hard to find one that matches your compiler exactly (at least if you're using VC). Extending the language to suit the domain is achieved (among other things) by operator overloading (take a look at boost for instance). If you want to treat code as data, look at functor (or lambda) dispatch maps (and/or dynamic library loading or even generating, compiling and execing auxillary processes). And, garbage collection is also done for C++--a quick google search should find a handful of implementations to choose from. So, what does that leave from your list?
Why does everyone think that 'simplifying the usage of STL algorithms without creating a lot of functors' is the only use for lambdas and closures? What about making your own code tighter by factoring symmetric blocks into one?