Hope for your project - a little off topic.

Discussion in 'C++' started by woodbrian77@gmail.com, Jun 9, 2013.

  1. Re: [OT] Re: Hope for your project - a little off topic.

    On 29.12.2013 23:04, Qu0ll wrote:
    >
    > There is obviously some disagreement over the precise definition of a
    > "species" so how about this: let's say a competent anthropologist from
    > 2013 were able to travel back in time to the period during which humans
    > were evolving and could stay there for 50,000 years if necessary (please
    > don't pick me up on the logistics of this). Let's say they are also
    > able to examine *every* embryo that is produced by the pre-humans or
    > "near" humans of the time. Would you agree that at some point they are
    > going to be able to perform a thorough examination of a particular
    > embryo and make the determination that they classifiable as "Homo
    > sapiens"? OK, well all I am saying is that the first time this is
    > possible is when we have identified the "first human".


    A more practical version of this experiment can be done with baking of
    gingerbread persons like <url:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gingerbread_men.jpg> and <url:
    http://jags-webdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gingerbread-woman-costumelrgscale880193_800jpg-cplydgbw.jpg>.

    Presumably you and I can agree on a reasonable definition of "finished
    gingerbread person", based on properties such as color, firmness,
    temperature, blah blah.

    I think we can even agree that in any particular performance of the
    experiment -- nom nom, fresh gingerbread person! -- each of us can
    pinpoint a particular gingerbread person as the first to be finished.

    Except that we won't necessarily pick the same one.

    So, each performance, we can fight over whose measurements and judgment,
    not to mention /definition/, is most correct. :)


    Cheers & hth.,

    - Alf (seriously off-topic mode)
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Dec 29, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. David Brown Guest

    Re: [OT] Re: Hope for your project - a little off topic.

    On 29/12/13 23:04, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "David Brown" wrote in message news:l9p8bn$sth$...
    >
    >> I think it is reasonable to say that since there is no possible
    >> definition of a "first human" (outside of religious fiction, and even
    >> there it is invariably inconsistent in every creation myth I have
    >> heard of), it is fair to be categorical and say there was no "first
    >> human".
    >>
    >> It is not uncommon amongst some religious people to deliberately
    >> misunderstand evolution and the concept of species. They read in
    >> their favourite book a few brief comments about early humans and other
    >> species, then extrapolate, misinterpret and misunderstand to come up
    >> with a theory about biology and species in which species are absolute
    >> and well defined. It's a logical as watching "Singing in the Rain" and
    >> coming up with a meteorological theory correlating the levels of rain
    >> with songs, but they seem to think it makes sense.
    >>
    >> So Biblical literalists think the two choices are "you believe God
    >> made humans and other species as complete, individual and unchanging
    >> concepts" or "you believe evolution made humans and other species as
    >> complete, individual and unchanging concepts through inexplicable
    >> leaps - one day a chimpanzee gave birth to the first human".
    >>
    >> Despite your (and Alf's) rather good explanations of species and
    >> "fuzziness", I doubt if you will change Qu0ll's fundamental and
    >> self-reenforced misunderstandings.

    >
    > I find most of this rather unnecessary, judgemental and somewhat offensive.


    Let me start by saying that yes, this whole discussion is unnecessary.
    It is very much off-topic in this group, and no one has any realistic
    ideas about changing anyone else's opinions. I enjoy such off-topic
    threads on occasion, and apparently so do many people here (though there
    are others that dislike them) - I like to swap ideas and opinions like
    this, even if it seldom leads to change or agreements. I don't agree
    with certain of your beliefs, but it can be good to hear them anyway.

    And yes, things get somewhat judgemental. Strong and controversial
    beliefs will /always/ been judged. You judge my beliefs and opinions
    against your own, and I judge yours. We can all try to limit our
    judgements to the arguments and opinions expressed rather than the
    people expressing them, though we also all know it is easy to stray from
    that path.

    Which brings me to the final point - I do not mean to be offensive. But
    I know that my tone can be somewhat sarcastic or exaggerated, and of
    course there is plenty of scope for writing things that can be taken in
    different ways and viewed as more offensive than intended.

    In particular, I made a rather large error in my post. I described (and
    ridiculed) a number of more general points about extreme views, and then
    I made a point that was specific to your views. I did not intend these
    to be connected as they were. I believe (from your posts and questions)
    that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about species and how the
    question of a "first human" does not really make sense, and you I don't
    think this thread will change that. But I did not mean to imply that
    you were a Creationist or that you hold such extreme views. I worded
    the post badly in that way, and for that I apologise. I should have
    read through my post more critically before sending it.


    >
    > You say things like "It is not uncommon amongst some religious people to
    > deliberately misunderstand evolution and the concept of species".


    I said that, and it is true. However, I did not mean to imply that this
    applies to /you/ specifically - it was a general statement (as were
    several other points I made). At best, I could only guess that it
    /might/ apply to you - after all, you had given little information about
    your opinions other than a conviction that there had to have been a
    "first human".

    > You
    > then attempt to ridicule my belief that there must have been a first
    > human with a "Singing in the Rain" analogy.


    I ridiculed the extrapolation many Creationists or Biblical literalists
    make to go from the stories in Genesis to theories about biology. Note
    that this is not a ridiculing of a Christian faith (or any other
    religious faiths and beliefs) - but targeted at a specific extremist
    viewpoint held by some people.

    If you don't believe that, then your beliefs are not being ridiculed here.


    That is /not/ the same as my disagreement about there being a "first
    human" as a general point - because that depends on there being a
    specific definition of a "human". If you can come up with a categoric
    definition of what makes a being "human", then it /might/ be possible to
    define a "first" human.

    > You (indirectly) suggest I
    > may be a "Biblical literalist".


    If I suggested that, it was /very/ indirectly - my points were general,
    not specific to you. (Again, I know it looked like they /were/ directed
    at you, and I can only apologise again.)

    > You then make the ridiculous statement
    > that "believe evolution made humans and other species as complete,
    > individual and unchanging concepts through inexplicable leaps - one day
    > a chimpanzee gave birth to the first human". Finally you refer to my
    > beliefs as "fundamental and self-reenforced (sic) misunderstandings".


    Again, this is the sort of argument that many Creationists (or fans of
    "Intelligent Design") use - not an argument that I am attributing to /you/.

    >
    > Well, it appears to me that your *beliefs* are vastly more "fundamental"
    > than mine. And I am certainly not "deliberately misunderstanding
    > evolution" or the "concept of species". Further, I am certainly not a
    > "Biblical literalist" and neither have I ever said that the human
    > species or any other is a "complete, individual or unchanging concept".


    I don't believe that you can talk about a "first human" until you define
    a "human" - without such a definition, there was no "first human". If
    that is more fundamental than your beliefs, fair enough.

    > Finally, if you can find a quote where I stated either directly or
    > indirectly that "one day a chimpanzee gave birth to the first human"
    > then I would challenge you to post it here.


    As noted multiple times above, I did not mean to imply that you said or
    thought this.

    >
    > So now that I have established that basically everything you posted here
    > is false, what can I make of anything else you say?
    >


    I think we have established that most of what I wrote does not apply to
    you, even though my clumsy writing implied that.

    What we have left is that you believe that there was a "first human",
    and I believe that without any kind of definition of "human" there is no
    meaning to the question - and hence there was no "first human".

    I think you are wrong to think there can be a clear definition of
    "human" - the move from "pre-human" ancestors to "modern human" was
    gradual, with a great deal of overlap. Species are not disjoint - it is
    not possible to say that one generation was "homo rhodesiensis" and the
    next generation was "homo sapiens". There is no dividing line.

    At best, one could pick specific genetic mutations and say that these
    are specific to humans, and therefore the first hominin with that gene
    was the "first human". (Other non-genetic characteristics, such as
    walking upright, using tools, talking, etc., are far more diffuse and
    even harder to categorise.) But there are many such genes, and for at
    least some of them it is not unlikely that they evolved more than once
    independently.

    Even when you can give defining characteristics to something, and give a
    clear decision to "this is an X", you do not necessarily have a "first"
    member. Consider the set of real numbers greater than 1. It is easy to
    see if a given number is in this set - yet it has no "first" member.

    > My belief that there must have been a first human has absolutely nothing
    > whatsoever to do with the Bible or religion in general so please do not
    > try to ridicule this notion by using your own hatred/fear of
    > Christianity, the Bible or religion as I am not referencing any of
    > those. Just because I *am* a Christian does not mean that I am
    > incapable of understanding complex scientific concepts or that I am
    > unable to apply logic and reason (despite what you may want to believe).
    >


    Fair enough. I am not against religion in itself - I have seen the good
    effects of religious faith as well as the bad effects. I am against
    irrationality in the name of religion, and I am against the abuse of
    human rights in the name of religion - but I know that the same applies
    to many religious people.

    > Like most contributors in this thread, you are seemingly allowing your
    > own religious or anti-religious views get in the way of a logical
    > debate. You see references to "Bible", "creation", "Adam and Eve" and
    > you become all defensive of anything which appears to attack your
    > "absolutely factual" scientific principles and go into all-out attack
    > mode against the "myths" of religion.
    >
    > Well, how about you try to distance yourself from those emotions and
    > consider what I am actually suggesting (which again has nothing to do
    > with religion).


    OK, I accept that criticism. I mixed things up in that post when they
    should have been separate.

    >
    > There is obviously some disagreement over the precise definition of a
    > "species" so how about this: let's say a competent anthropologist from
    > 2013 were able to travel back in time to the period during which humans
    > were evolving and could stay there for 50,000 years if necessary (please
    > don't pick me up on the logistics of this). Let's say they are also
    > able to examine *every* embryo that is produced by the pre-humans or
    > "near" humans of the time. Would you agree that at some point they are
    > going to be able to perform a thorough examination of a particular
    > embryo and make the determination that they classifiable as "Homo
    > sapiens"?


    I am happy to accept your thought experiment here, but I would /not/
    agree that there would be a point at which he could say "these are homo
    sapiens, but their ancestors were pre-humans".

    /If/ I thought such a classification were possible, then I would be
    agreeing with you about the existence of a "first human". But just as
    there is no clear dividing line between "small piles of stones" and "big
    piles of stones", there is no clear dividing line between pre-humans and
    humans.

    If your anthropologist were to jump back in time to find a group of homo
    rhodesiensis and follow it through thousands of generations, he would
    view it as a group of pre-humans that was gradually evolving. If he
    were to time-jump a little forward and find a group of humans, and
    follow them backwards through thousands of generations, he would view
    them as a group of humans with evolution viewed in reverse. And in the
    middle, there would be thousands of generations when he was viewing the
    /same/ group - but classifying it differently as "late pre-humans" and
    "early humans" depending on the viewpoint.

    > OK, well all I am saying is that the first time this is
    > possible is when we have identified the "first human".
    >
    > Then I am suggesting that if that embryo is male then let's name him
    > Adam and Eve otherwise. You may object to the names (possibly because
    > they make you go all defensive again) but they're just the names I would
    > use for the "first human".
    >


    The names would be fine - I just don't agree that such "people" existed.

    Note that this is not the same as saying I don't believe in common
    ancestors - the genetic, fossil, geological, statistical and biological
    arguments for common ancestors are very strong. There have been
    particular genetic changes at different stages that have enabled
    significant changes to the lifestyle of following generations, and such
    steps have resulted in the first carrier of that gene being a common
    ancestor.

    All I am arguing is that such common ancestors cannot be considered to
    be the "first human".
     
    David Brown, Dec 30, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. David Brown Guest

    Re: [OT] Re: Hope for your project - a little off topic.

    On 30/12/13 11:32, Qu0ll wrote:
    > "David Brown" wrote in message news:l9rgnc$9k3$...
    >

    <snip for space>
    >
    > David, I would like to express my sincere thanks for the humility you
    > displayed in this post. I did take your references and quotes to be
    > directed at me but I accept now that they were not so it's all good.


    It was my fault, and I'm glad there are no ill feelings over the clumsy
    post.

    >
    > I happen to know where you are coming from in many of the things you
    > said. Unfortunately extreme Creationists and fundamentalists give
    > Christians as a whole a bad reputation as being people incapable of
    > logical thought and dismissive of anything remotely scientific. This is
    > not limited to Christianity however, just as terrorists give Muslims a
    > bad name and also just as white supremacists, "rednecks", racists etc.
    > give non-religious people a bad name. Pretty much any form of extremism
    > (religious or otherwise) can paint an entire section of society in a
    > poor light.


    Indeed - we must all strive not to tar people with the same brush.

    >
    > Thankfully there are many Christians with very "modern" outlooks on life
    > and with very open-minded views. I myself am very highly educated
    > having degrees in two branches of science and believe I am more than
    > capable of evaluating evidence appropriately.
    >
    > I guess the main difference between me and someone like you (or a
    > non-Christian) is that I absolutely believe that science does not have
    > all the answers and there are things in this universe that science
    > cannot and will never be able to explain fully.


    I am not sure that is quite right - I /also/ believe there are things
    that science will never fully explain. The difference is that I don't
    appeal to a "higher power" for the explanation - I just accept that
    sometimes things are the way they are, and we will never know why. Why
    are the fundamental constants in physics balanced in such a way that
    molecular physics work? I don't expect science to give a complete
    answer (maybe it will, but I don't expect so) - but I don't feel the
    need to say "God set things up that way". But if you like to think
    that, that's fine by me.

    >
    > Anyway, this thread is definitely way off-topic (and clearly has been
    > for some time) but I *still* believe that there must have been a "first
    > human". Even if Homo sapiens did in fact evolve more than once
    > independently, one of those "new" individuals *must* have evolved first,
    > even if only by a nanosecond. Contrary to your views and that of others
    > in this thread, I very firmly believe that logic insists that there must
    > have been at least one point where the offspring was human and the
    > parent not fully human.
    >
    > I guess we can agree to disagree on this point and leave it there...
    >


    I can agree with that :)
     
    David Brown, Dec 30, 2013
    #43
  4. Guest

    On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:03:19 PM UTC-6, Jorgen Grahn wrote:

    >
    > In other words: please don't feed the trolls. From where I'm looking,
    > half of comp.lang.c++ is wasted on the Leigh-vs-woodbrian offtopicness
    > and that is not how it should be.


    I think Leigh asked a fair question about longevity.
    I've been answering as best I can, and of course others
    chime in. Although some post here in an attempt to
    discredit me, I'm hopeful those who examine the software
    on my site will consider it good. And I believe those
    who work with me will find I'm interested in improving
    my software by thinking about it through their project.


    Brian
    Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
    http://webEbenezer.net
     
    , Dec 30, 2013
    #44
  5. Jorgen Grahn Guest

    On Mon, 2013-12-30, wrote:
    > On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:03:19 PM UTC-6, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> In other words: please don't feed the trolls. From where I'm looking,
    >> half of comp.lang.c++ is wasted on the Leigh-vs-woodbrian offtopicness
    >> and that is not how it should be.

    >
    > I think Leigh asked a fair question about longevity.


    Maybe elsewhere in the thread, but not in the part I (unfortunately)
    happened read.

    /Jorgen

    --
    // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
    \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
     
    Jorgen Grahn, Dec 30, 2013
    #45
  6. Guest

    , Apr 4, 2014
    #46
  7. David Brown Guest

    On 04/04/14 04:47, wrote:
    > On Friday, December 27, 2013 5:57:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote;
    >>
    >> Again: your bible is a fiction,

    >
    > Some have looked into it:
    >
    > http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...pecies-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164
    >


    A bunch of students doing a back-of-the-envelope estimation based on
    guesses of ancient measurements about an exaggerated story copied from
    even older stories (the Bible authors copied it from Babylonian legends)
    does not constitute the slightest evidence for any of the Bible. It's
    some students doing a light-hearted project, hoping the department will
    pay for a night out at the cinema as "research".

    Plus - there were not 35,000 species of animal in Noah's time (assuming,
    for the moment, that there was such a person around 6000 years ago).
    3,500,000 would be closer if you don't count the microscopic animals,
    and don't count other types of life (plants, fungi, bacteria, etc.).
    Second, many animals (the "clean" ones) were in sevens, not twos.
    Third, using the building materials and techniques available at that
    time, a ship that size would be impossible to construct - it would
    collapse under its own weight, if it were even possible to find enough
    material and people to build it.

    And that's before you look at the story itself, rather than just the
    ship - the ecology, physics and biology involved clearly put it at the
    same level of realism as Star Wars and Harry Potter.

    Accept the Bible for what it is - a collection of teachings, parables,
    myths and legends, with a few bits of biased history along the way,
    written to give some moral guidance and keep the Jews as a separate
    people with a clear power structure.


    >
    > I'm not going to see the recent "Noah" movie, though.


    Watch "The Life of Brian" instead - it might make you think a little, as
    well as making you laugh.

    > It isn't worth a penny even.
    >
    > Brian
    > Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
    > http://webEbenezer.net
    >
     
    David Brown, Apr 4, 2014
    #47
  8. Öö Tiib Guest

    On Friday, 4 April 2014 10:19:10 UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
    > On 04/04/14 04:47, wrote:
    > > On Friday, December 27, 2013 5:57:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote;
    > >>
    > >> Again: your bible is a fiction,

    > >
    > > Some have looked into it:
    > >
    > > http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...pecies-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164
    > >

    >
    > A bunch of students doing a back-of-the-envelope estimation based on
    > guesses of ancient measurements about an exaggerated story copied from
    > even older stories (the Bible authors copied it from Babylonian legends)
    > does not constitute the slightest evidence for any of the Bible. It's
    > some students doing a light-hearted project, hoping the department will
    > pay for a night out at the cinema as "research".
    >
    > Plus - there were not 35,000 species of animal in Noah's time (assuming,
    > for the moment, that there was such a person around 6000 years ago).


    Plus - Noah had probably to loan reindeer of Santa Claus to collect
    even 35,000 species from all world (whole year, 100 species per day)?

    Plus - living beings consume lot more food and fresh water than they
    weight during one year. Otherwise they die of thirst and starvation.

    Everything can be anyway like in Bible. One has just to trust that
    we live in Matrix-like simulation that perfectly runs by the rules
    of nature unless Administrator issues some sort of change from
    "outside". It may be possible to prove that it is simulation but it
    is impossible to prove that it is not. Alleged situation can let one
    to hand-wave all issues with any story away with ultimate
    explanation "goddidit".

    Being afraid of Administrator (just for a case) can make sense for
    people who can't find any reasons to stay decent otherwise. However
    taking such apparent man-made fairy tales literally can't help
    with anything in modern time, is there a God or not. ;)
     
    Öö Tiib, Apr 4, 2014
    #48
  9. >
    > Not that this would prove anything, other than that they shouldn't
    > publish before they are ready.
    >


    And it raises .

    Wouter van Ooijen
     
    Wouter van Ooijen, Apr 4, 2014
    #49
  10. Guest

    On Friday, April 4, 2014 8:20:21 AM UTC-5, Drew Lawson wrote:
    > In article <>
    >
    > >http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...pecies-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164

    >
    >
    >
    > The only thing that is even more tiresome than religious battles
    > is people arguing for an account that they apparently have not read.
    > The biblical arc did not hold *two* of every kind. That is the
    > popular cliche. There were 7 pairs of everything except for the
    > unclean beasts.
    >
    > Tell the students to multiply by something approaching 7 and do
    > their homework again.
    >


    I don't know the students. But my understanding is
    the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of
    the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think
    35,000 species were on the ark.

    Brian
    Ebenezer Enterprises
    http://webEbenezer.net
     
    , Apr 4, 2014
    #50
  11. Dombo Guest

    Op 04-Apr-14 11:11, Chris Vine schreef:
    <SNIP>
    > radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50,
    > where E is the absolute temperature of the earth (-300K)


    -300 Kelvin ???
     
    Dombo, Apr 5, 2014
    #51
  12. David Brown Guest

    On 04/04/14 17:47, wrote:
    > On Friday, April 4, 2014 8:20:21 AM UTC-5, Drew Lawson wrote:
    >> In article <>
    >>
    >>> http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...pecies-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> The only thing that is even more tiresome than religious battles
    >> is people arguing for an account that they apparently have not read.
    >> The biblical arc did not hold *two* of every kind. That is the
    >> popular cliche. There were 7 pairs of everything except for the
    >> unclean beasts.
    >>
    >> Tell the students to multiply by something approaching 7 and do
    >> their homework again.
    >>

    >
    > I don't know the students. But my understanding is
    > the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of
    > the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think
    > 35,000 species were on the ark.
    >


    So you accept the word of the Bible, with absolutely /no/ other
    evidence, that there was a flood and an ark. And yet you reject, with
    absolutely no evidence, the Bible's description of the flood affecting
    the world rather than just a local region?

    If you are going to reduce the Bible's exaggerations until they start
    sounding less daft, why not take it to the level of reasonable likelihood?

    There have always been regional floods around the world. And I'm sure
    that at one point, there was a guy who thought that these particular
    rains look bad, so he put his family and farm animals on a boat or raft
    - thus saving them while the rest of the village got swamped.
     
    David Brown, Apr 6, 2014
    #52
  13. Guest

    On Sunday, April 6, 2014 7:34:05 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
    > On 04/04/14 17:47, wrote:
    > >

    >
    > > I don't know the students. But my understanding is
    > > the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of
    > > the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think
    > > 35,000 species were on the ark.

    >
    > So you accept the word of the Bible, with absolutely /no/ other
    > evidence, that there was a flood and an ark. And yet you reject, with
    > absolutely no evidence, the Bible's description of the flood affecting
    > the world rather than just a local region?


    It could have been the known world - an area equivalent
    to the size of the US.

    >
    > If you are going to reduce the Bible's exaggerations until they start
    > sounding less daft, why not take it to the level of reasonable likelihood?
    >
    > There have always been regional floods around the world. And I'm sure
    > that at one point, there was a guy who thought that these particular
    > rains look bad, so he put his family and farm animals on a boat or raft
    > - thus saving them while the rest of the village got swamped.


    Much bigger than a village.

    The Bible says, "The righteous shall live by faith."
    Our ancestors did so and gave us the motto - "In G-d
    we trust." My other evidence is in terms of G-d's
    faithfulness to me.


    Brian
    Ebenezer Enterprises - Was Eisenhower the last decent President?
    http://webEbenezer.net
     
    , Apr 6, 2014
    #53
  14. Guest

    On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:23:46 PM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    > wrote:
    >
    > > I don't know the students. But my understanding is

    >
    > > the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of

    >
    > > the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think

    >
    > > 35,000 species were on the ark.

    >
    >
    >
    > It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
    > unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
    > and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
    > probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
    >
    > You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number
    > was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
    > other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
    > humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
    > and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern
    > times. They were not built of wood. There's a maximum size that you
    > can build from wood before it crumbles under its own weight.)
    >


    Probably their wives helped work on the ark also.
    Noah may have received more instructions on how
    to build it than are in the Bible.
    Maybe they could afford to hire some people to help
    them. As far as the elements, I don't think it rained
    prior to the flood.

    Brian
    Ebenezer Enterprises
    http://webEbenezer.net
     
    , Apr 7, 2014
    #54
  15. Guest

    On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:46:00 PM UTC, Scott Lurndal wrote:
    >
    > You don't think. Period.



    The proof is in the pudding:

    http://webEbenezer.net/build_integration.html

    I don't claim it's perfect, but believe it's good and
    want to make it (code, documentation, etc.) better.
    Feel free to offer some ideas on how to do so. As
    I've said before I've been blessed to get a lot of
    ideas on how to do that via newsgroups. In recent
    months I've found ideas from these pages that have
    helped me improve the software.

    Brian
    Ebenezer Enterprises
    http://webEbenezer.net
     
    , Apr 7, 2014
    #55
  16. David Brown Guest

    On 07/04/14 17:41, wrote:
    > On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:23:46 PM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I don't know the students. But my understanding is

    >>
    >>> the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of

    >>
    >>> the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think

    >>
    >>> 35,000 species were on the ark.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
    >> unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
    >> and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
    >> probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
    >>
    >> You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number
    >> was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
    >> other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
    >> humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
    >> and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern
    >> times. They were not built of wood. There's a maximum size that you
    >> can build from wood before it crumbles under its own weight.)
    >>

    >
    > Probably their wives helped work on the ark also.
    > Noah may have received more instructions on how
    > to build it than are in the Bible.
    > Maybe they could afford to hire some people to help
    > them. As far as the elements, I don't think it rained
    > prior to the flood.
    >


    There is no way to make the story, as described in the Bible, remotely
    realistic. It is a fable, just like the myths and legends that every
    religion has - they exist to form a background to the religion, god(s),
    and questions such as "where do we come from?". Throughout the entire
    history of human culture, as far as we know it, religions have had such
    myths - and /nobody/ has treated them as though they were realistic,
    normal facts or historical accounts, until the Bible literalists came
    along in the 19th century (because Darwin upset them). Religious
    believers have happily said such stories were true, and that they
    believed them - but it is a different sense of "true". This other sense
    of "true" is part of a religious faith - it's the same thing people mean
    when they say they know logically that there cannot be a God, but they
    know he exists nonetheless.

    I think it is a sad thing when religious people try to justify tales
    from the Bible (or Koran, or any other religious book) in terms of
    realistic science and technology, rather than just accepting the
    intended lesson ("Don't mess with God - he can has the power to destroy
    us all. But fortunately he is a merciful and forgiving guy.")

    It is a lot like books with titles such as "The Science of Middle Earth"
    trying to explain Sauron's genetic engineering of the orcs.


    If you think that the story of Noah and the ark really happened as
    described in the Bible, then there is only one rational, logical and
    consistent explanation - God waved his magic wand and made it happen
    with no regard to the laws of physics, biology and ecology which apply
    to everyday life. And then he waved it again in order to hide all
    evidence of what "really" happened, and to create vast amounts of fake
    evidence for future scientists to find - just to ensure that no one
    could ever know for sure that God exists.

    And if you believe in /that/ level of conspiracy, you might as well join
    the last-thursdayists, as the evidence is just as strong.


    I have nothing against religious belief itself - if someone feels their
    lives are enhanced by a "relationship with God" of some sort, then
    that's fine. I am all in favour of people getting the best they can
    from their lives, as long as it is not at the expense of others. But
    irrationality and wilful ignorance and stupidity bug me - whether it is
    religiously based or not. (Non-wilful ignorance is cured by information
    and education, and non-wilful stupidity just has to be accepted.)
     
    David Brown, Apr 8, 2014
    #56
  17. Guest

    On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:26:36 PM UTC, Scott Lurndal wrote:

    > I'd ask how many customers you have for your marshalling framework


    This is a new approach... I don't have a lot of users yet.
    How many users do these guys -- http://springfuse.com --
    have?

    I think of it as a library.

    Brian
    Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
    http://webEbenezer.net
     
    , Apr 28, 2014
    #57
  18. Guest

    On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:23:46 PM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    >
    >
    > It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
    > unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
    > and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
    > probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
    >
    > You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number>
    > was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
    > other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
    > humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
    > and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern


    Noah and family would put Olympians to shame:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...peaked-7-300-years-ago-declining-rapidly.html
     
    , Apr 29, 2014
    #58
  19. David Brown Guest

    On 29/04/14 03:19, wrote:
    > On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:23:46 PM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
    >> unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
    >> and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
    >> probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
    >>
    >> You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number>
    >> was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
    >> other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
    >> humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
    >> and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern

    >
    > Noah and family would put Olympians to shame:
    >
    > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...peaked-7-300-years-ago-declining-rapidly.html
    >


    The article is about people 7300 years ago - isn't that long before the
    world was created, according to creationists?

    There are lots of people around the world that are much stronger, fitter
    and faster than modern Western athletes - it's a matter of lifestyle,
    genetics, and evolution. Different groups of people in different places
    and different times have evolved in different ways (some good ways, some
    bad ways), just as happens with all lifeforms.

    And even if there was such a person as Noah, and even if he were fitter
    and stronger than any current Olympian, it would take a mythological
    Greek Olympian to build the boat (assuming it were physically possible,
    which it is not).
     
    David Brown, Apr 29, 2014
    #59
  20. Qu0ll Guest

    "Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:lhsnm0$2bpo$...

    Reply at the end...

    -----------------------------------------
    wrote:
    > I don't know the students. But my understanding is
    > the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of
    > the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think
    > 35,000 species were on the ark.


    It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
    unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
    and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
    probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.

    You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number
    was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
    other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
    humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
    and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern
    times. They were not built of wood. There's a maximum size that you
    can build from wood before it crumbles under its own weight.)

    Even if it were to build a boat of that size from wood alone (it's
    not, but let's assume it is), it's logistically impossible to do with
    such a small crew with bronze-age technology.

    Building a boat of that size with such a small crew and such primitive
    technology would have taken decades, if not hundreds of years. "That's
    fine", you say, "Noah was hundreds of years old." Yeah, sure, let's
    accept that myth. However, that's not the problem. The problem is that
    a wooden structure of that size would require constant maintenance,
    especially given that it's constantly exposed to the elements. At some
    point, when the structure reaches a certain size, the amount of
    maintenance will take all the effort of the four-man crew, stopping
    them from actually building any more of it.

    Even if the boat wouldn't crumble under its own weight, it just cannot
    be seaworthy. There's a lot of engineering that goes into building big
    modern vessels, such as oil tankers. The sea exerts all kinds of stress
    onto the ship and it has to be designed to withstand them.

    Even if it had been just a *building* made of wood, rather than a boat,
    it would have been completely unprecedent for the time. The technology
    just wasn't there and, once again, there's a limit of how big a wooden
    structure can be.

    --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---
    -------------------------------------------


    For me, to believe that there is some degree of truth in the story of Noah's
    Ark means accepting that there was considerable divine intervention at every
    step of the way. Personally I have no problem with that and don't try to
    "prove" the story based on science alone and nor do I feel I need to.

    If there wasn't a divine force or supernatural powers then not much of the
    Bible makes sense anyway. I believe Jesus was God and rose from the dead.
    Nothing scientific in that. Not a problem for me.

    --
    And loving it,

    -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    _________________________________________________

    [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]
     
    Qu0ll, Apr 29, 2014
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. Martyn Fewtrell

    A little off topic!

    Martyn Fewtrell, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    668
    Michael
    Jan 7, 2004
  2. A little off topic

    , Feb 4, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    556
  3. ohaya
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,504
    Sudsy
    Aug 21, 2004
  4. Claude
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    557
    Claude
    Mar 7, 2004
  5. Cliff R.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    593
    Roy Schestowitz
    Jun 15, 2005
  6. Tan Thuan Seah

    A little off topic but..

    Tan Thuan Seah, Oct 13, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    488
  7. m.a

    a little off topic

    m.a, Feb 7, 2008, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    493
    Paul Shapiro
    Feb 8, 2008
  8. jacob navia
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    829
    spinoza1111
    May 30, 2010
Loading...