- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Religious fanatics of the dark side.Well, they were seeming to derive a certain perverse pleasure from denial of everything that was presented to them. One even stated that he was on a personal jihad against everything religious because he considered religion the bane of human society. So contradicting everything that was presented to him, regardless of its value, was his personal privilege and duty. Wasted a full six months of my time feigning that they couldn't understand and asking me to explain in more detail while they were snickering all along.
My opinion is based on observable reality and a justifiable inductive leap.
Just sayin' There isn't going to be any direct evidence of a Creator, so there isn't any direct evidence showimg the code was made by him.
The indirect evidence is compelling.
Just asserting it wasn't created by a Creator isn't an actual reson either, it's a conclusion. Which is fine as far as it goes, but don't confuse a conclusion with actual reasons.
Origin is justifiably inferred based on observation of the results of its function. Something that meticulously proceeds to assemble a computer such ass the human brain cannot be glibly dismissed as a mindless process without sacrificing logic which begs otherwise.
These people disagree with you:
Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project (that mapped the human DNA structure) said that one can "think of DNA as an instructional script, a software program, sitting in the nucleus of the cell."5
Perry Marshall, an information specialist, comments on the implications of this. "There has never existed a computer program that wasn't designed...[whether it is] a code, or a program, or a message given through a language, there is always an intelligent mind behind it."6
But there is the crux of the matter! You have absolutely no evidence against the existence of an intelligent designer.
My belief is founded on observation and a totally justifiable inductive leap based on the observations.
Just sayin' There isn't going to be any direct evidence of a Creator, so there isn't any direct evidence showimg the code was made by him.
Just asserting it wasn't created by a Creator isn't an actual reson either, it's a conclusion. Which is fine as far as it goes, but don't confuse a conclusion with actual reasons.
I’m a business consultant and Electrical Engineer.
[...]
Perry Marshall is an author, speaker, engineer and world-renowned business consultant in Chicago.
[...]
Perry’s work in digital communication networks, control systems, acoustics and e-commerce[...]
He has a degree in Electrical Engineering.
Exactly; that's why I suggest Wittgenstein's family resemblance model (from 'Philosophical Investigations') is appropriate here. Words like 'language' and 'game' represent a family of related ideas. Individual languages or games can be identified with the language or game family concept, but any two languages or games do not necessarily have anything common beyond that.You should stop looking at thing in black and white.
Let's look at two other "languages": English and C++
English is a human language: spoken and written.
C++ is a programming language: written and compiled, but not spoken
Books are written in English. Books are not written in C++.
Clearly, while both are refered to as "language", these are not the same kind of language.
When during a programmer job interview, I ask the candidate what languages he has experience in, he will not answer "English and Spanish". He will answer "C++, javascript,..."
In other words, from the context of my question, he will understand what kind of language I am refering to.
Your insistance on pretending as if C++ and English are the same thing simply because they are both being refered to with the word "language" is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
And yes, in context of C++, we programmers also talk about the "grammar and syntax" of the language.
In context of C languages, we even talk about dialects (C++, Visual C++, C, Ansi C, C#, ..)
You have made it abundantly clear that you struggle to understand this subject, and despite several users trying to educate you, you are not learning.Says the person who insists it is a language but not equal to a language. That it is a language but is not a language in a certain sense. What nonsense.
Those scientists didn't mean it was a language, in a certain sense. Quite the opposite, they went to great lengths to avoid any ambiguity. Adding you own condition is just playing some mental gymnastics to avoid admitting it is literally a language.
That is a logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof.
You keep claiming that you have a logical argument, yet all you can do is commit logical fallacies.
Your belief is founded on the faith based assumption that all codes are the product of an intelligent being.
When you are presented with the professional testimony of those who are in the field of information processing which tell us that coded information arises only from mind you reject it.
To me that is characteristic of a blind faith which must denigrate all that opposes it regardless of merit in order to avoid a sudden disintegration of its chosen reality.
Why should anyone accept mere opinion? Where is the evidence?
Accepting mere opinion devoid of evidence would be blind faith. That is what you are doing.
Agreed. The problem we have in this thread is that you're mistakenly thinking Perry Marshall is a) unbiased and b) an expert. There is at least one poster on this thread who is more of an expert than Mr Marshall, and you're dismissing what that person says "in the service of [your own] quackery".Honest research demands that we give unbiased expert opinion due credit as constituting evidence. That is a basic tenet which if blatantly and repeatedly ignored very often might indicate irrationality in the service of quackery.
You are placing the cart before the horse.Agreed. The problem we have in this thread is that you're mistakenly thinking Perry Marshall is a) unbiased and b) an expert. There is at least one poster on this thread who is more of an expert than Mr Marshall, and you're dismissing what that person says "in the service of [your own] quackery".
Honest research demands that we give unbiased expert opinion due credit as constituting evidence.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Do you even know what that idiom means? It is a nonsensical response to my post.You are placing the cart before the horse.
When you are presented with the professional testimony of those who are in the field of information processing which tell us that coded information arises only from mind you reject it.
To me that is characteristic of a blind faith which must denigrate all that opposes it regardless of merit in order to avoid a sudden disintegration of its chosen reality.
Honest research demands that we give unbiased expert opinion due credit as constituting evidence.
That is a basic tenet which if blatantly and repeatedly ignored very often might indicate irrationality in the service of quackery.
The same holds true for disqualifying everything that might seriously contradict a pet view as non-evidenced.
Well, you folks seem to feel that consensus of opinions constitutes evidence so why can't the other side play the same game? I agree about the electrical engineer to a limited degree. If indeed the electrical engineer can point out analogous features in biology to his field then his expertise becomes relevant.No scientific research treats opinions as evidence. Only biased research would do that.
In addition, there is no reason that biologists working in the field of genetics and molecular biology should heed the opinion of an electrical engineer who apparently has no education in genetics or molecular biology.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?