Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 31 Mar 2010 11:28 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Mar 31, 1:47�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:06:12 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Mar 30, 4:12�pm, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:40:43 +1100, "David L. Jones" >> >> >> <altz...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >D from BC wrote: >> >> >> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so... >> >> >> Time for another mega-troll. >> >> >> >> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering? >> >> >> >There appears to be no evidence that delusion and electronics design ability >> >> >are mutually exclusive. >> >> >> >Dave. >> >> >> Not as long as you're happy spinning the pcb etch four or five times, >> >> and shipping a lot of bugs. To get it right the first time, you can't >> >> lie to yourself about anything. >> >> >Your opinions about the way the genetic system might work did imply >> >that you were deceiving yourself pretty thorooughly in that area. >> >> Genetic science is, if anything, trending in the directions I >> expected. DNA and its supporting systems is indeed a very >> sophisticated, nearly intelligent machine, hardly a >> random-mutation+selection process. Evolution guarantees that it be so. > >And you still don't get it. DNA doesn't know anything about itself, >merely whether the phoneme it has produced is good enough to survive >and reproduce. All the "sophistication" involves differernt ways of >doing the random mutation process - in big gene-duplicating chunks >versus single nuclear polymorphisms. > >This is about as far from "intelligent" as one can get. You have no basis for that flat statement. To cling to 19th century classic Darwinism makes about as much sense as clinging to 18th century classic physics. YOU are refusing to be intelligent because you are, for emotional reasons, refusing to consider possibilities. That's why you don't design electronics, too. You are a creature of emotion pretending to be an intellectual to appease your ego. That's radically hilarious. John
From: Bill Sloman on 31 Mar 2010 17:25 On Mar 31, 2:13 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Mar 31, 1:47 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:06:12 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Mar 30, 4:12 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:40:43 +1100, "David L. Jones" > > >> >> <altz...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >D from BC wrote: > >> >> >> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so... > >> >> >> Time for another mega-troll. > > >> >> >> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering? > > >> >> >There appears to be no evidence that delusion and electronics design ability > >> >> >are mutually exclusive. > > >> >> >Dave. > > >> >> Not as long as you're happy spinning the pcb etch four or five times, > >> >> and shipping a lot of bugs. To get it right the first time, you can't > >> >> lie to yourself about anything. > > >> >Your opinions about the way the genetic system might work did imply > >> >that you were deceiving yourself pretty thorooughly in that area. > > >> Genetic science is, if anything, trending in the directions I > >> expected. DNA and its supporting systems is indeed a very > >> sophisticated, nearly intelligent machine, hardly a > >> random-mutation+selection process. Evolution guarantees that it be so. > > >And you still don't get it. DNA doesn't know anything about itself, > >merely whether the phoneme it has produced is good enough to survive > >and reproduce. All the "sophistication" involves differernt ways of > >doing the random mutation process - in big gene-duplicating chunks > >versus single nuclear polymorphisms. > > >This is about as far from "intelligent" as one can get. > > Nice guesses, but there is no conclusive proof for your claim either, > yet you tout it and yourself as being the only viable "observation", and > THAT IS as far from intelligence as it gets. No "about as" about it. Actually, it's straight-foward system engineering. If the genetic mechanism hasn't got access to the relevant information, its got nothing to be "intelligent" about - which does seem to be a problem that you enjoy exhibiting. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 31 Mar 2010 17:33 On Mar 31, 5:28 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Mar 31, 1:47 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:06:12 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Mar 30, 4:12 pm, John Larkin > >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:40:43 +1100, "David L. Jones" > > >> >> <altz...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >D from BC wrote: > >> >> >> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so... > >> >> >> Time for another mega-troll. > > >> >> >> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering? > > >> >> >There appears to be no evidence that delusion and electronics design ability > >> >> >are mutually exclusive. > > >> >> >Dave. > > >> >> Not as long as you're happy spinning the pcb etch four or five times, > >> >> and shipping a lot of bugs. To get it right the first time, you can't > >> >> lie to yourself about anything. > > >> >Your opinions about the way the genetic system might work did imply > >> >that you were deceiving yourself pretty thorooughly in that area. > > >> Genetic science is, if anything, trending in the directions I > >> expected. DNA and its supporting systems is indeed a very > >> sophisticated, nearly intelligent machine, hardly a > >> random-mutation+selection process. Evolution guarantees that it be so. > > >And you still don't get it. DNA doesn't know anything about itself, > >merely whether the phoneme it has produced is good enough to survive > >and reproduce. All the "sophistication" involves differernt ways of > >doing the random mutation process - in big gene-duplicating chunks > >versus single nuclear polymorphisms. > > >This is about as far from "intelligent" as one can get. > > You have no basis for that flat statement. To cling to 19th century > classic Darwinism makes about as much sense as clinging to 18th > century classic physics. It's straight-forward system engineering. The fact that you can't see it is a little surprising - we know that you don't know much about anything outside of electronics, but genetics and DNA regularly explained in the semi-popular press. > YOU are refusing to be intelligent because you are, for emotional > reasons, refusing to consider possibilities. That's why you don't > design electronics, too. Typical Republican thinking. Invent the reality you'd like to beleive in, then claim that's the things really are. > You are a creature of emotion pretending to be an intellectual to > appease your ego. That's radically hilarious. I don't have to "pretend" to be an intellectual. The fact that you claim not to recognise one when he's rubs your nose in your own pretensions does say something about your own ego problems. Settle for the fact that you can design electronic circuits that work, and learn to live with fact that you haven't learned enough about the rest of the world to have useful opinions outside of electronics. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: David Eather on 31 Mar 2010 18:16 On 1/04/2010 7:25 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: > On Mar 31, 2:13 pm, Archimedes' Lever<OneBigLe...(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> > wrote: >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:38:36 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> On Mar 31, 1:47 am, John Larkin >>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 15:06:12 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman >> >>>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>>>> On Mar 30, 4:12 pm, John Larkin >>>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:40:43 +1100, "David L. Jones" >> >>>>>> <altz...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> D from BC wrote: >>>>>>>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so... >>>>>>>> Time for another mega-troll. >> >>>>>>>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering? >> >>>>>>> There appears to be no evidence that delusion and electronics design ability >>>>>>> are mutually exclusive. >> >>>>>>> Dave. >> >>>>>> Not as long as you're happy spinning the pcb etch four or five times, >>>>>> and shipping a lot of bugs. To get it right the first time, you can't >>>>>> lie to yourself about anything. >> >>>>> Your opinions about the way the genetic system might work did imply >>>>> that you were deceiving yourself pretty thorooughly in that area. >> >>>> Genetic science is, if anything, trending in the directions I >>>> expected. DNA and its supporting systems is indeed a very >>>> sophisticated, nearly intelligent machine, hardly a >>>> random-mutation+selection process. Evolution guarantees that it be so. >> >>> And you still don't get it. DNA doesn't know anything about itself, >>> merely whether the phoneme it has produced is good enough to survive >>> and reproduce. All the "sophistication" involves differernt ways of >>> doing the random mutation process - in big gene-duplicating chunks >>> versus single nuclear polymorphisms. >> >>> This is about as far from "intelligent" as one can get. >> >> Nice guesses, but there is no conclusive proof for your claim either, >> yet you tout it and yourself as being the only viable "observation", and >> THAT IS as far from intelligence as it gets. No "about as" about it. > > Actually, it's straight-foward system engineering. If the genetic > mechanism hasn't got access to the relevant information, its got > nothing to be "intelligent" about - which does seem to be a problem > that you enjoy exhibiting. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen I am not entering this debate but I think you have the wrong emphasis with the intelligent design thing. It is not that the DNA is intelligent. The claim is that the DNA in how it has been assembled and what it does shows that it (the DNA) has been designed by an intelligence.
From: JosephKK on 31 Mar 2010 19:43
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:11:03 -0700, WarmUnderbelly <WarmUnderbellyOfAmerica(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:44:31 -0500, AZ Nomad ><aznomad.3(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote: > >>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:19:52 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >>>In article <W5adnd3RF-12wizWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d(a)posted.localnet>, >>>robertbaer(a)localnet.com says... >>>> >>>> D from BC wrote: >>>> > Checked link >>>> > http://www.biblicalconcourse.com/BiblicalWorldviewEngineering.pdf >>>> > huh.. A Christian Engineering Education Conference in 2004 >>>> > >>>> > clipped from article page 3: >>>> > >>>> > 'Redemption was effected by God, when His Son, Jesus the Christ, paid >>>> > the penalty for man?s unrighteous >>>> > actions. This redemption has a two-fold effect on humankind.' >>>> > >>>> > I agree but for different reasons. >>>> > 1) It's a good way of knowing what engineers can detect bullshit. >>>> > Jesus didn't make a sacrifice if he ain't permanently dead on earth and >>>> > in imaginary dimensions. iows ..no resurrection. >>>> > >>>> > 2) It's a good way of knowing what engineers can detect illogic. >>>> > Christians (not all there's 38000 denominations) have God = Jesus = >>>> > Father = Son = Holy Spirit = Holy Ghost and it's not considered a >>>> > redundancy. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Re: #2, now you know (one reason) why Muslims "dis" Christians... >> >>>I'm not familiar with the Muslims.. Is that the peaceful religion >>>where killing in the name of God is rewarded by God? >> >>Yeah, just like all the other religions. Difference is that most >>islamic sects haven't embraced modern morality and moved beyond their >>codified bronze age belief structure. > > > Christ, have them teach the extremist idiots that sabers and self >sacrifice solves nothing. Oh come on, 13 or so "Crusades" over the centuries taught no such thing. |