in 90% of projects I've ever been on, that have released late, it's the marketing teams fault that the project released late and under developed, all because they didn't think to ask the developer first, how long they need to deliver the product.
correlate
verb
verb: correlate; 3rd person present: correlates; past tense: correlated; past participle: correlated; gerund or present participle: correlating
kôrlt,kärlt/
1.
have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another.
"the study found that success in the educational system correlates highly with class"
synonyms: correspond to/with, match, parallel, agree with, tally with, tie in with, be consistent with, be compatible with, be consonant with, coordinate with, dovetail (with), relate to, conform to; More
informalsquare with, jibe with
"postal codes correlate with geographic location"
antonyms: contrast
establish a mutual relationship or connection between.
"we should correlate general trends in public opinion with trends in the content of television news"
synonyms: connect, analogize, associate, relate, compare, set side by side
"we can correlate good health and physical fitness"
1.
each of two or more related or complementary things.
"strategies to promote health should pay greater attention to financial hardship and other correlates of poverty"
Origin
mid 17th century (as a noun): back-formation from correlation and correlative.
Okay, you want to me to say your entire argument is invalid, fine, it is, you've put in place a designer, so who designed it? You want to claim a designer created life, well then that designer had to be designed. You've caused an infinite regression paradox, so try again. This time put some effort into it.
I live in Ontario and I can tell you that our tests are a joke, they really only test if you can work your head around the broken logic presented in badly worded questions in an attempt to see if you can provide an unrealistic answer. I was allowed to redo the grade 6 provincial standard test because I failed it, on the redo I was allowed a specialized test which was given orally and using hands on work. I aced it, top 1% of all marks, so don't tell me the tests work, they don't, they never have. I know I'm only one person but it happened to me, I wonder how many other people fall victim.
I want all of those kids writing a program in bash, with sed and awk, that imports COBOL databases and parses data into logfile that grepped by cron and email with sendmail to the teachers!
No, the SAT test is used to determine over all performance and one of those metrics is raw intelligence. After I failed the grade 6 standard test, I was given the chance for a redo, but in a different style that was hands on and verbal, I aced it in the top 1% of all results. If I failed the standard test but aced the special test, that goes to show one case where the standard test failed. Now I'm one result out of million, but how many other student are being screwed because the test just doesn't work?
Semi-valid is actually invalid. Come on, now. Break it or accept it.
No, semi-valid means it has some good points but not all the talking points are correct or complete.
As a design process, evolution is an undirected search over a design space, using an extremely weak filter of "does not die" to refine the design.
Popularity aside, it's not a serious answer to human origin. It could sort of past muster when cells were thought to be blobs of simple chemicals, but we now know they are complex nano-factories running off of digital blueprints.
Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it doesn't make the point of answering what started it all, evolution only answers how we got from early bacterial life to modern man. Yes a cell is complex, very very complex, but that doesn't mean it needs a designer, just like really simple software modules, combine to make a complex module, the cell could function the same way and indeed must, as we know evolution as take bacteria to man, and that means information, in the form of generic material, has been created through replication.
Junk DNA has turned out to be nothing of the sort, and I believe "non-coding DNA" is related to control logic and error checking. And that's before we even start to look at symbiosis and ecosystems.
I never said junk DNA, 99.8% of all DNA is just the "house keeping" DNA, it's the same for every person, ti's the other.2% that makes me, me and you, you. I might have the percentages off, but none the less, the idea works.
How many retards does it take to equal a single intelligent designer? How many monkeys randomly hitting buttons and clicking "Compile" will replicate your work as a SW engineer?
Well if you take an infinite amount of time, a team of monkeys at some point, even randomly mashing on the keyboard will of course be able to replicate my work. I don't know the point of that analogy as it nither defends your side or disproves mine. A bomb could go off in a junk yard and a sports car could be assembled, sure the odd are damn close to 0% but it's still possible.
Intelligent design is just re-branded creationism, so that adults can sneak creationism into school and lie to children. The world looks designed, I've admitted that, however that doesn't mean God designed it. As I already said you would have to then explain who designed God, it's an infinite regression paradox.
Bearing in mind that failure is an option, there being no finite number is a very real possibility.
I agree that failure is an option, everything we know could be wrong.
The supposed natural origins of complex designs aren't anywhere close to being explanations. So we're left with the one known good explanation of design - intelligent design; one that was historically believed in, and consistent with any computer engineer's experience with information systems.
Again, I'm not debating the appearance of design, but even so, leave a computer running with a monitor plugged in, in a magnetic rich environment, you'll see the memory react and you'll see "garbage" in the memory and on the screen, yet no one design it. If you look at software bugs, you'll see events occur with the appearance of design that weren't designed. My point is that the appearance of design doesn't mean there was a designer.
No, I do not. I don't have to know anything about the designer of man, to recognize that something like a computer or a car is a designed object, and that those were designed by man.
Extrapolating that true relationship to conclude that man too is a designed object is rational. Incomplete, perhaps, but working with incomplete information should not be anything new to an engineer. ("So you want me to buid you a widget but you don't know what you want...")
Well my IQ has been tested at 141 and yet I failed almost every standardized test I've been put through here in Ontario, that being grade 3, grade 6, grade 9 and grade 10.
This is true, so I have no problem with having an entry level grade school course in computing, where you learn some light coding, some light hardware and light theory.
The SAT is one of the most useless measures of knowledge or capability the world has ever seen. Standardized tests don't work, they've never worked and we know they don't tell us about a persons true intelligence. So if China wants to take a SAT for me, go ahead.
Sure you can mandate when people have to stop reproducing. If we get to the point that it's a real option to, "halt", father time, then we should put a hard limit on when you can actually reproduce, not have sex, just have babies. In a case where false immortality is an option, we'd have to look very seriously at something like this as.
Why are be so pressing on kids to learn coding? If a kid wants to learn coding, they'll learn coding, if they don't want to, they won't. If we start forcing kids to learn computer programming it will be no better then when we force kids to take Shakespeare, Drama, History or Art. Don't make kids learn anything they aren't interested in, because when you do that, they'll never give it a real shot.
I'll give you credit on actually giving me a semi valid point, at least an intelligent, well thought out point, possibly the best on there really is.
I'm actually an Embedded Software engineer, so I know more then a lot about creating complex computer based systems:-), I've written several full Operating Systems and dozen's of RTOS's. As far as computer systems go, I got that covered:-)!
I'll agree with you that complex systems require a designer, at in all cases we've been able to find so far. I'll agree that the human body is insanely complex having trillions and trillions of cells, each more complex then the best super computer we currently have. Each cell is full of DNA and DNA is the single most complex chemical structure we've ever discovered.
I don't know if you accept evolution, but the current evolution theory can trace DNA from modern man back to early bacteria, this means that DNA has gained complexity over time, though means of replication, this also means that information had to produce itself over time.
I don't know how much embedded programming you've done but in several specialized cases I've had to create functions in low level Assemblers / C to mimic high level abstraction object orientence, I can post some of the code if you're interested. These smaller, simpler systems, end up in a more complex state, without being designed in a complex manor, if that makes sense.
My point is that something such as DNA can be decomposed into smaller, simpler systems, which when assembled, create more complex, "designed", states. Scientists have been able to create amino acids in a lab, which granted, is not full DNA, but it does demonstrate the simple system design methodology.
If you want to pose a designer, then you have ask yourself, who designed the designer? You could insert the claim that the designer always existed, but that doesn't really answer anything, it's scapegoating a proper answer. However you posed probably the one acceptable argument for God, however, it doesn't really answer anything because it requires a designer for a designer, which just pushes the one true creator into an infinite regression paradox.
Just use iOS once and you'll run back to Android. Everything about the iOS experience is lacking and unfinished. It's a poor excuse of an OS, wrapped around an asinine GUI that isn't intuitive to use or welcoming. The settings are a mess compared to Android, the way the apps interconnect feels like a high school student attempted it for his / her first programming project. I was on iOS for work a year ago, I couldn't give that phone back fast enough, it was more of hindrance at getting working done then anything else. If Google wants to keep market share, they just have to let users play with iOS, they'll run back to Android!
I would absolutely change my mind if someone could show my God, I'm not joking, bring God down to earth for 5 minutes, let me interview him, I'll check his credentials and once I validate everything is on the up and up, I'll let him go. Simple:-)
Other forms of proof I'll except:
1. Show me the garden of eden. 2. Show me the bones of Adam and Eve. 3. Show me the Ark.
Just start there, it will be enough to give you serious credibility.
Slashdot Mirror
Those were light hearted remarks.
Teaching children creationism as fact is no different then lying to them, once you can rationalize lying to kids, you can do anything.
in 90% of projects I've ever been on, that have released late, it's the marketing teams fault that the project released late and under developed, all because they didn't think to ask the developer first, how long they need to deliver the product.
Give them time, Give them resources and let them tell the marketing department how it's going to work.
correlate
verb
verb: correlate; 3rd person present: correlates; past tense: correlated; past participle: correlated; gerund or present participle: correlating
kôrlt,kärlt/
1.
have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another. "the study found that success in the educational system correlates highly with class" synonyms: correspond to/with, match, parallel, agree with, tally with, tie in with, be consistent with, be compatible with, be consonant with, coordinate with, dovetail (with), relate to, conform to; More informalsquare with, jibe with "postal codes correlate with geographic location" antonyms: contrast establish a mutual relationship or connection between. "we should correlate general trends in public opinion with trends in the content of television news" synonyms: connect, analogize, associate, relate, compare, set side by side "we can correlate good health and physical fitness"
noun
noun: correlate; plural noun: correlates
kôrlt/
1.
each of two or more related or complementary things. "strategies to promote health should pay greater attention to financial hardship and other correlates of poverty"
Origin
mid 17th century (as a noun): back-formation from correlation and correlative.
So I'm still not wrong.
I agree with what you're saying, my point is just teach kids a little bit of programming and if they don't care for it they won't continue.
Okay, you want to me to say your entire argument is invalid, fine, it is, you've put in place a designer, so who designed it? You want to claim a designer created life, well then that designer had to be designed. You've caused an infinite regression paradox, so try again. This time put some effort into it.
That was right from the dictionary, so if it's wrong then call Websters.
I live in Ontario and I can tell you that our tests are a joke, they really only test if you can work your head around the broken logic presented in badly worded questions in an attempt to see if you can provide an unrealistic answer. I was allowed to redo the grade 6 provincial standard test because I failed it, on the redo I was allowed a specialized test which was given orally and using hands on work. I aced it, top 1% of all marks, so don't tell me the tests work, they don't, they never have. I know I'm only one person but it happened to me, I wonder how many other people fall victim.
HAHA
I want all of those kids writing a program in bash, with sed and awk, that imports COBOL databases and parses data into logfile that grepped by cron and email with sendmail to the teachers!
No, the SAT test is used to determine over all performance and one of those metrics is raw intelligence. After I failed the grade 6 standard test, I was given the chance for a redo, but in a different style that was hands on and verbal, I aced it in the top 1% of all results. If I failed the standard test but aced the special test, that goes to show one case where the standard test failed. Now I'm one result out of million, but how many other student are being screwed because the test just doesn't work?
Semi-valid is actually invalid. Come on, now. Break it or accept it.
No, semi-valid means it has some good points but not all the talking points are correct or complete.
As a design process, evolution is an undirected search over a design space, using an extremely weak filter of "does not die" to refine the design. Popularity aside, it's not a serious answer to human origin. It could sort of past muster when cells were thought to be blobs of simple chemicals, but we now know they are complex nano-factories running off of digital blueprints.
Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it doesn't make the point of answering what started it all, evolution only answers how we got from early bacterial life to modern man. Yes a cell is complex, very very complex, but that doesn't mean it needs a designer, just like really simple software modules, combine to make a complex module, the cell could function the same way and indeed must, as we know evolution as take bacteria to man, and that means information, in the form of generic material, has been created through replication.
Junk DNA has turned out to be nothing of the sort, and I believe "non-coding DNA" is related to control logic and error checking. And that's before we even start to look at symbiosis and ecosystems.
I never said junk DNA, 99.8% of all DNA is just the "house keeping" DNA, it's the same for every person, ti's the other .2% that makes me, me and you, you. I might have the percentages off, but none the less, the idea works.
How many retards does it take to equal a single intelligent designer? How many monkeys randomly hitting buttons and clicking "Compile" will replicate your work as a SW engineer?
Well if you take an infinite amount of time, a team of monkeys at some point, even randomly mashing on the keyboard will of course be able to replicate my work. I don't know the point of that analogy as it nither defends your side or disproves mine. A bomb could go off in a junk yard and a sports car could be assembled, sure the odd are damn close to 0% but it's still possible.
Intelligent design is just re-branded creationism, so that adults can sneak creationism into school and lie to children. The world looks designed, I've admitted that, however that doesn't mean God designed it. As I already said you would have to then explain who designed God, it's an infinite regression paradox.
Bearing in mind that failure is an option, there being no finite number is a very real possibility.
I agree that failure is an option, everything we know could be wrong.
The supposed natural origins of complex designs aren't anywhere close to being explanations. So we're left with the one known good explanation of design - intelligent design; one that was historically believed in, and consistent with any computer engineer's experience with information systems.
Again, I'm not debating the appearance of design, but even so, leave a computer running with a monitor plugged in, in a magnetic rich environment, you'll see the memory react and you'll see "garbage" in the memory and on the screen, yet no one design it. If you look at software bugs, you'll see events occur with the appearance of design that weren't designed. My point is that the appearance of design doesn't mean there was a designer.
No, I do not. I don't have to know anything about the designer of man, to recognize that something like a computer or a car is a designed object, and that those were designed by man. Extrapolating that true relationship to conclude that man too is a designed object is rational. Incomplete, perhaps, but working with incomplete information should not be anything new to an engineer. ("So you want me to buid you a widget but you don't know what you want ...")
I'll give you forgive
Correlate: have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another.
It was used correctly :-)
Well my IQ has been tested at 141 and yet I failed almost every standardized test I've been put through here in Ontario, that being grade 3, grade 6, grade 9 and grade 10.
This is true, so I have no problem with having an entry level grade school course in computing, where you learn some light coding, some light hardware and light theory.
The SAT is one of the most useless measures of knowledge or capability the world has ever seen. Standardized tests don't work, they've never worked and we know they don't tell us about a persons true intelligence. So if China wants to take a SAT for me, go ahead.
How is that optional?
Sure you can mandate when people have to stop reproducing. If we get to the point that it's a real option to, "halt", father time, then we should put a hard limit on when you can actually reproduce, not have sex, just have babies. In a case where false immortality is an option, we'd have to look very seriously at something like this as.
Why are be so pressing on kids to learn coding? If a kid wants to learn coding, they'll learn coding, if they don't want to, they won't. If we start forcing kids to learn computer programming it will be no better then when we force kids to take Shakespeare, Drama, History or Art. Don't make kids learn anything they aren't interested in, because when you do that, they'll never give it a real shot.
I'll give you credit on actually giving me a semi valid point, at least an intelligent, well thought out point, possibly the best on there really is.
:-), I've written several full Operating Systems and dozen's of RTOS's. As far as computer systems go, I got that covered :-)!
I'm actually an Embedded Software engineer, so I know more then a lot about creating complex computer based systems
I'll agree with you that complex systems require a designer, at in all cases we've been able to find so far. I'll agree that the human body is insanely complex having trillions and trillions of cells, each more complex then the best super computer we currently have. Each cell is full of DNA and DNA is the single most complex chemical structure we've ever discovered.
I don't know if you accept evolution, but the current evolution theory can trace DNA from modern man back to early bacteria, this means that DNA has gained complexity over time, though means of replication, this also means that information had to produce itself over time.
I don't know how much embedded programming you've done but in several specialized cases I've had to create functions in low level Assemblers / C to mimic high level abstraction object orientence, I can post some of the code if you're interested. These smaller, simpler systems, end up in a more complex state, without being designed in a complex manor, if that makes sense.
My point is that something such as DNA can be decomposed into smaller, simpler systems, which when assembled, create more complex, "designed", states. Scientists have been able to create amino acids in a lab, which granted, is not full DNA, but it does demonstrate the simple system design methodology.
If you want to pose a designer, then you have ask yourself, who designed the designer? You could insert the claim that the designer always existed, but that doesn't really answer anything, it's scapegoating a proper answer. However you posed probably the one acceptable argument for God, however, it doesn't really answer anything because it requires a designer for a designer, which just pushes the one true creator into an infinite regression paradox.
Got to love when people with no programming experience and no programming ability comment.
Yep, all I really want to hear are some logical, rational arguments in favor of a God, that's it.
Just use iOS once and you'll run back to Android. Everything about the iOS experience is lacking and unfinished. It's a poor excuse of an OS, wrapped around an asinine GUI that isn't intuitive to use or welcoming. The settings are a mess compared to Android, the way the apps interconnect feels like a high school student attempted it for his / her first programming project. I was on iOS for work a year ago, I couldn't give that phone back fast enough, it was more of hindrance at getting working done then anything else. If Google wants to keep market share, they just have to let users play with iOS, they'll run back to Android!
Bring your IT in house and only hire the A+ IT guys, not by grade, but by skill.
I would absolutely change my mind if someone could show my God, I'm not joking, bring God down to earth for 5 minutes, let me interview him, I'll check his credentials and once I validate everything is on the up and up, I'll let him go. Simple :-)
Other forms of proof I'll except:
1. Show me the garden of eden.
2. Show me the bones of Adam and Eve.
3. Show me the Ark.
Just start there, it will be enough to give you serious credibility.