Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: Archimedes' Lever on 31 Mar 2010 20:30 On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:16:59 +1000, David Eather <eather(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: >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. He'll interpret that one 100% incorrectly as well. I can guarantee it.
From: brent on 31 Mar 2010 20:32 On Mar 31, 8:23 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 17:26:26 -0500, "RogerN" <re...(a)midwest.net> wrote: > > >"John Larkin" <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > >news:a524r51rn73jjudigj69jkd5et7tqorrjo(a)4ax.com... > >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:41:56 -0700, Mr.Eko > >> <ekointhed...(a)lostisland.org> wrote: > > >>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:02:57 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddr...(a)comic.com> > >>>wrote: > > >>>>If I got this right... > >>>>The reason why you believe in God is because it works for those that > >>>>believe in God. > >>>>uhh.. That's too ambiguous for me.. > >>>>I'm understanding that as: The reason why you believe in God is because > >>>>others believe in God. > >>>>Correct? > > >>> It appears that you have never had a beautiful, wonderful, early > >>>morning, early spring walk through a flowering Western US desert or > >>>Eastern US woodland. > > >>> That would be a mere two of the reasons why an observer of such wonders > >>>becomes certain that it is the result of creation. > > >> It's not certainty to me, but it's sure suspicious that Earth is such > >> an improbably beautiful place, and that we are alive now. The > >> probability of those things happening is so close to zero that it > >> doesn't matter. > > >> Consider living near the triple point of water: clouds, rivers, snow, > >> all at the same time. > > >> Consider the neatly separated minerals for the taking, and the > >> fuel/oxidizer in abundance. Consider the clear atmosphere, dense > >> enough for flight but clear enough that we can see the stars. > > >> I bet D from BC is unimpressed. > > >> John > > >It takes more faith to believe D from BC is an electronics designer, doesn't > >it? :-) > > >I've heard a lot of people say they asked God that if he exists to let them > >know and somehow or other God revealed himself to them. It didn't come that > >easy for me, I desparately searched for God for days that turned into weeks, > >but I did find evidences enough, and in abundance, to believe in God. > > >You hear today stuff like "follow the money" claiming religion is only about > >the money, and it's hard to argue with because in many instances it is true. > >But at one time, to be a believer in Jesus meant probable death. You have > >to get past the TV preachers and those who are in it for the money, you have > >to get one on one with God. Most of the disciples were killed because of > >their faith in Jesus, if anyone would know the truth, they would, and they > >were willing to hold to their faith even though it cost their life. If it > >were false, they wouldn't have been willing to die for something they knew > >was a lie. > > >A Romanian missionary that spoke at our church on several occasions walked > >out of then communist Romania by following a pillar of light. On multiple > >occasions this guy was picked up by the KGB and beaten because he was a > >servant of God, he paid the penalty to be a believer, that's the kind of > >person God moves for to deliver. > > >Jesus was who he was and did what he did, but he gave his power to those who > >believe in him. Read Acts, the disciples were able to do what Jesus did, > >just like Jesus promised in the Gospel according to John. > > >So, you have the Bible foretelling and foreshadowing Jesus a long time > >before he came, then you have Jesus that came and fulfilled the prophesies > >about himself, then the disciples that died because they told about Jesus, > >and many martyrs since. Or you can believe this dipsh*t called DfromBC that > >does good to turn on a flashlight and is incapable of much of anything else. > >Sorry D, is your first name Dipsh*t? > > >RogerN > > Shame on you for dropping below his level. You are doing your case damage > by starting name calling. Roger, I have engaged in discussion with D from BC before. He is not intellectually honest in his arguments even though he would like you to believe that his liberation from belief in God has made him intellectually superior to Christians.
From: BigBalls on 31 Mar 2010 20:39 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:55:42 -0400, Hammy <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: >Toyota as well as all major car manufacturers don't build the vast >majority of their own parts, they assemble. Yes, idiot. They also DESIGNED it, you stupid twit. Just because they have a division or third party vendor make it, doesn't mean that it is not their design. What a putz you are. Why don't you go down to the corner and just announce it?
From: JosephKK on 31 Mar 2010 20:47 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:10:58 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:33:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>On Mar 30, 5:40 am, "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. >> >>Jim Thompson believes in the Republicans. That's pretty much the same >>level of silliness. > >Bill Sloman proves that dreary realism isn't necessarily associated >with electronic design ability. > >John If you has used socialism instead of realism, you might have had a point. Slowman is immune to reason.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 31 Mar 2010 20:49
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:27:39 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >It's not certainty to me, but it's sure suspicious that Earth is such >an improbably beautiful place, and that we are alive now. The >probability of those things happening is so close to zero that it >doesn't matter. Or that we are positioned in our solar system in such a way as to have the right mix of weather, and Jupiter does a good job of keeping the debris left over from the solar system construction away from us. What would this planet have been like without a large, massive orb out there to sweep up the mess? Do the atheists call that "dumb luck"? |