The Age of the Universe

[joshua 1 9]

It depends what one's motivations are.

Some go towards; "what works for them" or in other words, what is comforting to them. Others, peel back the layers, look for objectivity and search for what is most likely true, based on the available evidence.

You are free to agree with who you desire of course, but I have consumed the works of many NT scholars and historians, who study the NT for a living. There are some things these folks come to consensus on and one of them is; the gospels were penned by anonymous authors, around 40-70 years after Jesus died.

Again you are only telling me about the apostasy.

 

[Michael]

https://www.google.com/search?q=artificial+intelligence+pattern+recognition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

We can always talk about pattern recognition as it relates to the whole field of artificial intelligence since that's the area of computer 'science' that's likely to produce the greatest changes in our society over the next few decades.

 

[Davian]

Er, then why is it called computer "science"?

Post #768: A human, looking at something and providing their subjective impression of it is not "computer science".

Don't move the goalposts from human pattern recognition to the science of developing artificial pattern recognition systems.

Why bother?

Because you provided all of those links with the assertion that they disagreed with me. Now, get to it, or retract.

780

 

[Michael]

That certainly does reinforce my impression of your knowledge on the subject.

Another personal insult, and another example of you *not* supporting your statements with real science. Tsk. Tsk. Run baby run.

Do you seriously think those folks that matter will see your posts, here?

lol.

IMO everyone matters, not just Pope Guth and Deacon Hawking.

My money is already spent, thanks.

Gee, you threw your hard earned money down a hole at LUX. Kind of a big waste of money eh?

I do not see why not. At least you do own up to them.

Whereas you seem to use them all the time and you don't own up ever.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Doesn't matter what semantics you put on it. People will still ask you to support your claims.

Again my claim is a quote from a book. What objection do you have with Campbell? Dean Ornish MD calls Campbell "one of the giants in the field". He authored hundreds of scientific papers and has sat on numerous government panels. What is your objection and what is your claim against his approach? As plants become more nutritious than the animals that feed on those plants become faster, stronger and more intelligent from the improved nutrition.


In effect you would be arguing against co evolution. As I said I want to investigate how the food a species eats evolves along side of that species. So that is why I take the approach I am taking in the discussion. So individual species do not evolve apart from the entire eco system. The whole system evolves.

 

[Michael]

Post #768: A human, looking at something and providing their subjective impression of it is not "computer science".

You're moving the goal posts. Here's what you actually said again:

Pattern recognition is poor science.

Pattern recognition is *excellent* science. Psst. Humans are the ones that *programmed* those computers to *look for* pattern recognition in the first place.

Don't move the goalposts from human pattern recognition to the science of developing artificial pattern recognition systems.

I didn't see a word about humans when you said this:

Pattern recognition is poor science.

Who or what exactly do you think is *programming* those pattern recognition subroutines into the computer anyway?

Because you provided all of those links with the assertion that they disagreed with me. Now, get to it, or retract.

780

I already did that for you. You're simply in denial of the fact that pattern recognition is *widely* used in computer science and also science in general. I handed you pages of links to published papers that describe the process for you in detail and you didn't read a single one of them.

 

[Davian]

Another personal insult,

How so? did you make any effort to provide a citation for your comment?

and another example of you *not* supporting your statements

I made no claims.

IMO everyone matters, not just Pope Guth and Deacon Hawking.

It never ceases to amaze me to watch religionists use their own nomenclature in the pejorative.

Gee, you threw you money down a hole at LUX. Kind of a big waste of money eh?

I spend my money on my wife, her clothes and my car. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Whereas you seem to use them all the time and you don't own up ever.

Even if I had, would that excuse you? Are you going to let the non-believer take the moral high ground?

 

[Davian]

... Humans are the ones that *programmed* those computers to *look for* pattern recognition in the first place.

That is exactly what I said not to do. Moving the goalposts changes the context.

Provide those quotes, or retract.

780

 

[Michael]

Provide those quotes, or retract.
780

Pattern recognition is poor science.

Post *peer reviewed* support of this statement or retract. I've shown you ample published references for the fact that pattern recognition is used in computer science, and it's relatively "mature' technology these days. They're already testing self driving cars in fact.

Provide published support for your claim that pattern recognition is "poor science' or retract.

 

[Davian]

Post <snip>

Provide those quotes, or retract.
780

 

[Michael]

How so?

You insinuated that the problem was mine, without supporting evidence. See a problem with that particular behavior?

did you make any effort to provide a citation for your comment?

It's not my job in the first place. You provided a reference that claimed that the entire universe has a "net zero" amount of energy in it, *in spite* of the fact that chemical energy is being used every on a daily basis by *billions* of human beings. Provide an explanation (not just a handwave but a real published paper) that demonstrates a "net zero" amount of energy and how chemical energy is somehow "cancelled out". Explain how energy use of over time works in a "net zero" energy universe.

I made no claims.

You posted (and apparently stand by) Hawking's comments about a net zero energy universe. Put up your evidence.

I spend my money on my wife, her clothes and my car. I have no idea what you are talking about.

You don't pay any taxes at all?

Even if I had, would that excuse you? Are you going to let the non-believer take the moral high ground?

If you were innocent of the use of strawmen, you might be able to claim some sort of debate based 'moral high ground'. Unfortunately you're as guilty as I am and at least I'm willing to acknowledge my use of them, whereas you're not. So much for your "moral high ground".

 

[Michael]

Provide those quotes, or retract.
780

Provide *published* scientific support of your erroneous claim or retract:

Pattern recognition is poor science.

 

[Davian]

You insinuated that the problem was mine, without supporting evidence.

You failed to provide a citation for the comment to made about mainstream cosmology. That is your problem.

It's not my job in the first place.

It isn't mine.

You provided a reference

I did. It merely showed that your opinions contradicted what Hawking has in print.

You don't pay any taxes at all?

Not in your country.

If you <snip>

I guess you are.

 

[Davian]

Prov<snip back-pedalling>

Back-pedalling for the Win

• Davian
• Jul 10, 2015

Provide those quotes, or retract.
780

Failure to provide those quotes will be accepted as abdication.

 

[Michael]

You failed to provide a citation for the comment to made about mainstream cosmology. That is your problem.

Get off the denial-go-round already. I provided you with a dozen different observations over the past decade that falsified some aspect of either dark matter, or dark energy theory. I've provided plenty of citations. It's not my fault if you didn't read or respond to them.

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850&sid=c088c796df7cc34e283396cc5d5c3d13

It isn't mine.

Oh yes it is since you posted Hawking's quote about a mythical, magical "net zero energy" universe, where apparently all energy use over time is just *free* and doesn't.

I did. It merely showed that your opinions contradicted what Hawking has in print.

So what? His opinions also violate the principles of GR theory as well as the conservation of energy. Who cares what he thinks?

Not in your country.

Well, you likely still pay taxes to someone. If it's going toward "dark matter' theory or 'dark energy" theory, you're throwing your money down a hole too.

 

[Michael]

Back-pedalling for the Win

• Davian
• Jul 10, 2015

Provide......

Been there, done that. I handed you *pages* of published papers from authors who regularly use pattern recognition in *computer science*. You ignored it

Pattern recognition is poor science.

Provide *published* support for this claim, or retract. Failure to do so will be accepted as your abdication.

 

[bhsmte]

Again you are only telling me about the apostasy.

If you want to label the work of a consensus of NT scholars and historians (most of which are Christian) as apostasy, that is your choice.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you want to label the work of a consensus of NT scholars and historians (most of which are Christian) as apostasy, that is your choice.

I'm just going by what the Bible says. There is going to be a falling away from the truth before Jesus returns. This is one of the signs of his coming.

2 these 2:3Letnomandeceiveyoubyanymeans:for that day shall not come, except there come a falling awayfirst,

 

[bhsmte]

I'm just going by what the Bible says. There is going to be a falling away from the truth before Jesus returns. This is one of the signs of his coming.

2 these 2:3Letnomandeceiveyoubyanymeans:for that day shall not come, except there come a falling awayfirst,

Cool, focus on that then.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Cool, focus on that then.

Focus on dispensationalism?