I need some help from the YEC's on this board

[crawfish]

I am trying to put together a solid, efficient and fast algorithm for syncing data between multiple computers on a wireless internet. I could use some help designing UML, flowcharts and use cases as well.

I understand that most of you are probably not computer scientists, but if you are able to tell biology PhD's where they are wrong without actually studying biology past a HS level, this should be a piece of cake.

 

[Cabal]

GetGodtodoit.

 

[philadiddle]

Careful, most YECs are engineers. See The Salem Hypothesis.

 

[pgp_protector]

Drat, I'm a Software Engineer with skill using, MySQL, SQLite, C#, VB, PHP, Some Java & some C++, in development of Real Time High Speed MagnoResitive Testers but I'm not a YEC, so can't help you.

Sorry.

*Also Tagging Thread

 

[AnswersInHovind]

I am trying to put together a solid, efficient and fast algorithm for syncing data between multiple computers on a wireless internet. I could use some help designing UML, flowcharts and use cases as well.

I understand that most of you are probably not computer scientists, but if you are able to tell biology PhD's where they are wrong without actually studying biology past a HS level, this should be a piece of cake.

I think your joke is flawed.
There is a difference between telling somebody they are wrong and coming up with something ourselves. I know that sentence must come across as a joke, but let me give you an example from you example.

If somebody comes up with an algorithm to sync the data, and it doesn't work, is a person not allowed to say something? You don't have to know how the algorithm works to see the end result is not right. In science, I may not understand all of evolution, but the conclusions are not possible.

 

[laconicstudent]

If somebody comes up with an algorithm to sync the data, and it doesn't work, is a person not allowed to say something? You don't have to know how the algorithm works to see the end result is not right.

Your example would be a lot more relevant if evolutionary theory actually was problematic. As it is, we have a constant influx of research that verifies Evolution.

In science, I may not understand all of evolution,

Then stop criticizing it. It is as absurd as a jet passenger entering the cockpit and telling the highly qualified pilot how to do his job.

but the conclusions are not possible.

Somehow I'm betting your last 6 words stem from your preconceived notions, rather then any actual study of the research literature.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Your example would be a lot more relevant if evolutionary theory actually was problematic. As it is, we have a constant influx of research that verifies Evolution.




Then stop criticizing it. It is as absurd as a jet passenger entering the cockpit and telling the highly qualified pilot how to do his job.




Somehow I'm betting your last 6 words stem from your preconceived notions, rather then any actual study of the research literature.

Thankyou for the great lengths you went to in this post to correct me. Your hard efforts are appreciated.

 

[rcorlew]

Your example would be a lot more relevant if evolutionary theory actually was problematic. As it is, we have a constant influx of research that verifies Evolution.

It seems (although I am not a YEC) you do have a flaw in your assertion in that statement. What does exist is an influx of new research, which you are correct on that, but the new information causes a modification to any number of the smaller theories that are compiled into the conglomerate of the Theory of Evolution. If a theory must be modified in order to remain valid, that would mean that the underlying hypothesis which produced the originating theory would have been falsified. A falsification in any number of the theories within the conglomerate theory does not however falsify the conglomerate as a whole.

Some observations that I have made are likely to make both camps mad, but they are an interesting amalgamation of pure observances.

1) Just because there are 7 days listed for creation in Genesis does not mean they occur in the same week, year, millenia or any other measure of time.

2) Evolution does occur but is most likely unrepeatable as determinate factors may be compound and unobserved.

3) Not all unfalsified hypotheses are true

4) The possibility of an occurrence and the probability of an occurrence does not indicate that an occurrence actually happened.

5) Even in collegiate texts the words or phrases "most likely" or "probably" or my favorite "possibly" are used unsparingly in biology texts.

6) Science admits there is still much to learn yet believes that what is knows now is enough to theorize with or about.. At one point the greatest civilization on Earth, the Egyptians, thought the brain just produced mucos so they removed it and destroyed it during mummification. 100 years ago they did not know we had a planed named Pluto, wait that is not a planet anymore, well anyway, they did not know it was there.

Now back to your regularly scheduled squabble!

 

[crawfish]

I think your joke is flawed.

Well, I'm not a professional comedian, and I'm not sure there is a perfect analogy.

The idea for this thread came about when I posted a quote from Francis Collins about genetics (well within his expertise), and had a YEC summarily tell me why everything about that quote was wrong. I think he was a lawyer.

 

[Siyha]

Well, I'm not a professional comedian, and I'm not sure there is a perfect analogy.

The idea for this thread came about when I posted a quote from Francis Collins about genetics (well within his expertise), and had a YEC summarily tell me why everything about that quote was wrong. I think he was a lawyer.

If evolution doesn't hold up in a court of law, how can it be true?


Irrefutable

 

[philadiddle]

If evolution doesn't hold up in a court of law, how can it be true?


Irrefutable

And when it does hold up in a court of law, then the trial was tainted with bias.

 

[Papias]

AIH wrote:

In science, I may not understand all of evolution, but the conclusions are not possible.

The absurdity of that statement shows exactly why Crawfish's opening post is such a great way to show the problem with the YEC position.

The YEC position is like if I went to the American Medical Association and told them that the germ theory of disease was wrong because no one has ever directly observed a germ in the act of killing someone. Oh, those microscope images? They were misinterpreted!

Papias

 

[AnswersInHovind]

AIH wrote:


The absurdity of that statement shows exactly why Crawfish's opening post is such a great way to show the problem with the YEC position.

The YEC position is like if I went to the American Medical Association and told them that the germ theory of disease was wrong because no one has ever directly observed a germ in the act of killing someone. Oh, those microscope images? They were misinterpreted!

Papias

and the TE position is, "Evolution is true because more people believe it is and majority opinion is truth."

See? I can play this game too.

 

[Cabal]

and the TE position is, "Evolution is true because more people believe it is and majority opinion is truth."

See? I can play this game too.

Except no TE here claimed anything like that and the post being quoted by Papias was based on your own words.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Except no TE here claimed anything like that and the post being quoted by Papias was based on your own words.

Actually I never made any of the claims he did, so no... it wasn't based on my post.

And yes, TE's constantly refer to the majority opinion to back themselves up, forgetting that the only opinion which really matters is God's.

TE's are afraid of being mocked and persecuted, so they cop out and fall into the trap of syncretism, making a fusion between atheism and Christianity. Being called dumb by an atheist like Dawkins is the worst possible thing for them so they hop on the evolution wagon as not to stand out. Jesus had a lot to say about such people.

 

[Mallon]

TE's are afraid of being mocked and persecuted, so they cop out and fall into the trap of syncretism, making a fusion between atheism and Christianity. Being called dumb by an atheist like Dawkins is the worst possible thing for them so they hop on the evolution wagon as not to stand out. Jesus had a lot to say about such people.

If us evolutionary creationists gave a whit about what Dawkin's had to say, we'd become atheists, not evolutionists.

 

[Cabal]

Actually I never made any of the claims he did, so no... it wasn't based on my post.

It contained an equivalent level of arrogance and folly.

And yes, TE's constantly refer to the majority opinion to back themselves up forgetting that the only opinion which really matters is God's.

You mean your opinion of God's opinion

TE's are afraid of being mocked and persecuted, so they cop out and fall into the trap of syncretism, making a fusion between atheism and Christianity.

No, it's called reconciling science with Christianity. It's been done before, lest we forget a certain incident involving heliocentrism.

And science =/= atheism, in case you hadn't noticed your mistake

Being called dumb by an atheist like Dawkins is the worst possible thing for them so they hop on the evolution wagon as not to stand out.

Oh please, you really don't have a clue about either Dawkins or TE if you think being a TE stops you "standing out". Both strong atheists and creationists equally despise those in the middle ground. Calling TE the cop out position is just asinine.

Jesus had a lot to say about such people.

Wonder what he'd say about false witness.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

It contained an equivalent level of arrogance and folly.



You mean your opinion of God's opinion

Yep. My opinion of explicit statements made in historical type narrative.

No, it's called reconciling science with Christianity. It's been done before, lest we forget a certain incident involving heliocentrism.

And science =/= atheism, in case you hadn't noticed your mistake

Didn't equate science with athiesm (unless you think evolution and science are one in the same) In case you hadn't noticed your mistake

Oh please, you really don't have a clue about either Dawkins or TE if you think being a TE stops you "standing out". Both strong atheists and creationists equally despise those in the middle ground. Calling TE the cop out position is just asinine.

Seem to have touched a button here. I'm sorry. I must have missed all the anti-theistic evolution literature out there.

In any case, perhaps when looking for truth you should start with the Bible. I know its a crazy concept, but name a Christian leader in history who wasn't at least a little crazy

Its also a bad habbit to project your conception of what YEC's believe into places they don't actually exist. You seem to be over reading into my words a lot.

 

[juvenissun]

I am trying to put together a solid, efficient and fast algorithm for syncing data between multiple computers on a wireless internet. I could use some help designing UML, flowcharts and use cases as well.

I understand that most of you are probably not computer scientists, but if you are able to tell biology PhD's where they are wrong without actually studying biology past a HS level, this should be a piece of cake.

You are a computer scientist. You should know the comparison you made is not a logical one.

Should I explain?

 

[The Lady Kate]

If evolution doesn't hold up in a court of law, how can it be true?


Irrefutable

It held up pretty well in Dover.

You're right... irrefutable.