Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 1 Apr 2010 23:10 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 18:19:49 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >In article <n2far5tb3bej3oe6bkau53ou8obck5j480(a)4ax.com>, >krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz says... >> >> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:33:33 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >> >> >I suspect I'm not getting all posts here. >> >Did Larkin write 'I am a Christian.' ? >> >Can that be posted again. >> >> Evidently Larking thought you would able read your own thread. However Larkin >> is overly optimistic. > >You're an excellent reader... I must have missed something.. As usual, you have. Illiterates often do. >Can you tell me what religion Larkin is in? The question alone speaks volumes about your ignorance.
From: krw on 1 Apr 2010 23:11 On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:50:34 -0700, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:15:21 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 01:17:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> 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, >>> >>>Have your read any of the recent papers on the subject? You might try >>>to plow through "Modularity" ISBN 0-226-73855-8. It was published in >>>2004, but the stuff coming out in the current "Proceedings of the >>>National Academy of Science" still seems to fit the same set of ideas. >>> >>>> but there is no conclusive proof for your claim either, >>> >>>Or so you'd like to think. >>> >>>> yet you tout it and yourself as being the only viable "observation", >>> >>>I do seem to know more about the subject than you or John Larkin - >>>which isn't much - but if either of you took the trouble to listen >>>somebody who has studied the subject at a respectable university (as >>>John Larkin claims that one of his kids has done) you could get an >>>even better informed opinion. >> >>My older daughter is a biology professor at University of the Pacific. >>She has her own office (with a window!) and her own 1200 square foot >>lab full of gene sequencers and stuff like that. And assistants to do >>the wet stuff. I discuss this stuff with her now and then, and she is >>finally starting to admit that I might not be crazy. >> >>She also has two kids and five motorcycles. >> >>John >> > > > Did SloDork ever spawn any of himself? I sure hope not. No, he's no good at mechanics either.
From: D from BC on 1 Apr 2010 23:40 In article <4llar5p9f943cv0rt0jjfn90avjo5utqb2(a)4ax.com>, OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org says... > > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > wrote: > > >The bible would certainly be of interest if physics,chemisty and biology > >books quoted the bible on gravity theory, atomic theory and genetics. > > > >Those mid east bronze age bible writing desert monkeys didn't even know > >they were breathing nitrogen. > > > Whouda thunk that all those times I called you an idiot that it was > actually spot on!? Maybe you can help me out and explain what you found wrong in my post. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: D from BC on 1 Apr 2010 23:53 Krw.. it's possible I missed what Larkin wrote. Seems you're are keeping good track of what Larkin wrote. Did he write what religion he's in? -- D from BC British Columbia
From: krw on 2 Apr 2010 00:07
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 20:53:51 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >Krw.. it's possible I missed what Larkin wrote. Seems you're are keeping >good track of what Larkin wrote. No, you didn't miss it, you can't read. > Did he write what religion he's in? Again, an asinine question like that shows how stupid you really are. |