Re: Making money from Java

"Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Do you have any idea how many ulcer sufferers paid the price, including
>> death, for that kind of blind arrogance? My dad suffered from ulcers
>> almost his whole life, but in the 90's he took *four* doses of
>> antibiotics and never had another ulcer. During the 90's it was announced
>> that doctors had finally discovered by using thermocouples that
>> menopausal women having hotflashes did, in fact, have a skin temprature
>> increase. All I can say is, I've been married to a woman who had
>> hotflashes, and anyone in the same situation who *did not* know there is
>> an abrupt skin temprature increase either suffers from whole body
>> numbness or is a nitwit. Since this condition has been around as long as
>> women, I have been searching in vain how to describe a medical profession
>> that can be so obtuse as not to know this until the 1990's. I was born
>> after WWII, in which there were literally millions of burn victims.
>
> This tactic is called "Appeal to emotion", and is a logical fallacy.

It wasn't a 'tactic', I was simply establishing context. :-)

>> Yet the conventional medical wisdom of whether you should, after a burn,
>> immediately place your (whatever was burned) into warm or cold water has
>> changed *three* times.
>
> Maybe the science behind what should be done after a burn is
> complicated.

It doesn't matter how complicated the science is. Determining whether burned
flesh heals faster if placed in warm or cool water is extremely simple. :-)

>> Once again, a scientific community that cannot determine, after millions
>> of trials, something as simple and testable as that, defies description.
>
> What are the alternatives to science for treating a skin burn? Does the
> Bible have something to say about what to do in those cases? Did Jesus,
> for example, tell people to always apply cold water when they burn
> themselves? Your statement here is reminiscent of the pointy haired boss
> from Dilbert: "I don't understand the process, but hey, it's must be easy
> right? So why can't my employees solve it on time, on budget, and bug
> free? Therefore, my employees are idiots."

You don't want to believe the Bible if you see flaws in it. Why do expect me
to believe the scientific community that tells me they know how life formed,
when I see flaws in their determinations? :-)

>> And you want me to believe these people when they tell me they *know*
>> life got here without God? Uh, huh. :-)
>
> You emphasized the word "know", as if that was the main problem with
> "these people". I.e. you're implying that you would be okay if "these
> people" merely "had theories about how life got here that were admittedly
> under development and subject to change as new information arrives".
> That's strawman again, because scientists DO have theories about how life
> got here, and those theories ARE under development, and they are subject
> to change as new information arrives.

Wow, Oliver, have you been reading these posts? Do you see any *hint* in
these posts that any of them (or yourself) are even remotely ready to accept
that the evolutionists, for example, are climbing up the wrong tree? Oh yes,
*know* is the correct expression, alright. :-)

> When you meet a scientist, ask him (or her) what is the probability
> that the Sun will rise tomorrow. If he says 100%, then he is either
> uneducated as a scientist, or he is simplifying things (perhaps
> patronizing you). A scientist should always be willing to reinvestigate
> his beliefs upon new evidence.

Oliver, I really wish what you said there were true, I really do. I'm sure
you believe it, but it just doesn't work that way.

>> I am familiar with those experiments, and they conclusively show that
>> dirt can get perhaps as much as a hundred billionth of the way from
>> nonliving to living. Sorry, but that does not impress me. The leap from
>> basic organic (note, that the classification of 'organic' here is
>> manmade. Since they occur in nature, including outer space, without life,
>> they could have been as accurately described as non-organic) compounds to
>> a living cell with multiple interdependent systems that *all* must be in
>> place for the cell to live, is vast indeed from the tiny step of forming
>> compounds. You would be extremely better justified in comparing the
>> geological formation of a spec of metal ore to a flying 747. The
>> complexity of a single living cell is comparable to the complexity of the
>> entire world economy, down to the economy of each individual person.
>> Makes a 747 look like a tinker toy. :-)
>
> The idea that "complexity" must come from "intelligence" is a strangely
> popular misconception. It is even more surprising when it comes from
> someone in software development. If you're given two programs which look
> and behave identically from the user's perspective, but the source code of
> one is a complete spagheti mess and the other is cleanly designed,
> documented, and seperated into logical modules, which is more likely to be
> the result of an intelligent designer versus a fumbling random designer?

All the programs I am familiar with were created by some form of (perhaps
questionable? :) intelligence. Complex systems can have behavior that is
unexpected if one is not omniscent. That is a Very Different Thing from
simplicity changing itself into complexity.

> One tactic is to point a receiver dish to random points in the sky and
> try to listen in for a signal. Do the people seeking intelligent life look
> for the most complex, intricate signal for this search? No, because such
> signals occur "naturally" from pulsars and black hole radiation, etc. What
> do they seek them? Something simple, like a sine-pulse. Why? Because the
> probability of such a signal occuring naturally is extremely small. We
> know this, and other intelligent life should know this as well from
> examining the same universe. So to distinguish itself from all the random
> noise, it should send a clear, crisp signal that is so strikingly
> artificial, that we could reasonably conclude it must result from
> intelligence.

Well, the key word should probably not be 'complexity' but 'organization',
or perhaps 'structured'. DNA, for example, is not only highly complex, it is
highly organized and structured. A sine wave is very simple, but organized
and structured. Random static is complex, but unorganized and unstructured.

>> The function of a living cell is like billions of tiny nano machines, all
>> working together busily to sustain life.
>
> Actually, these nanomachines frequently work AGAINST each other, as if
> there was no coordinated grand scheme as to what each machine was supposed
> to do. The leaves of plants are supposed to perform photosynthesis to
> absorb energy from light. Why then, do they produce green pigments, thus
> reflecting the green spectrum of light, reducing the amount of energy they
> receive?

Sorry, by "working together" I did not mean to imply "cooperatively", but
that the sum of their effect is to sustain the cell.

>> The way DNA works just boggles my mind at the incredible intricacy and
>> precision of design.
>
> There's the issue of why 97% of human DNA is unused. Commonly called
> "Junk DNA", it looks like our DNA strands are mostly "left-over" mess from
> our evolutionary ancestors.

I suspect that there is an enormous amount of adaptability built into our
DNA, that many scientists mistake for evolution when they see it in other
organisms.

>> No machine made by man even comes close. Yet, you look at that incredible
>> example of obvious intelligent design, designed by an intelligence vastly
>> beyond man, and say it got here strictly by accident, all without any
>> intelligent design.
>
> "By accident" is another misleading term. For some reason, people
> believe that the probability of of something complex coming from something
> simple is low, when actually is very high. Again, this should be obvious
> to anyone who had to maintain another person's program. A big complex mess
> is evidence that the thing was created incrementally over time, not all at
> one shot by a single creator with a plan and a unified vision.\

A big complex mess is evidence that a big complex something went wrong. :-)

>> There is no question that the academic community is generally hostile
>> toward the Christian viewpoint. Any Christian who has ever been exposed
>> to a secular college or university environment knows this.
>
> Honestly, I think people really don't care what religion you believe in
> when you attend a secular university. I don't even know whether the
> university I went to our not is a "secular" one, which just goes to show
> you how little people care. I don't remember ever hearing the word
> "Christian" being uttered in any of my classes. The professors never asked
> students if they were Christian, and they never responded to a wrong
> answer with "Oh, you must be Christian" or anything like that. I really
> think the professors couldn't care less what religion you believe in.

Religious prejudice, like racial prejudice, is easy to overlook if you
aren't on the receiving end. :-)

> I have trouble believing that all secular colleges on Earth are hostile
> to Christians, as you seem to be saying.

No, I'm not saying that. I have attended three different colleges and
universities here in Alabama, and I didn't see a problem. But such
anti-Christian prejudice is very common, I assure you.

>>> At what point do we cross from the living into the non-living? Again, I
>>> argue that it's just a question of degree.
>>
>> I don't think that question is so difficult.
>
> Open any biology textbook, and you'll likely see a passage in the
> introduction stating that it is difficult to define what is life and what
> isn't.

I will concede the point. I haven't opened a biology textbook in quite a
while. :-)

> I just want to point out that earlier in this post, you ridiculed
> scientist for claiming they *know* something. Your exact statement was
> "And you want me to believe these people when they tell me they *know*
> life got here without God? Uh, huh. :-)"

Well, if these scientists have had personal contact with the Earth at the
time when life actually got here, then they would have a better basis to
*know*. :-) As it is, they are dealing with very indirect evidence that can
(and often does) have many reasonable and competing explainations, and must
pile assumption on assumption as they combine theories, all along the way.
Human science has a very poor track record of establishing exactly what did,
or will, happen when they aren't there to observe and experimentally verify.

Actually, I understand your objection. On the other hand, when one has
specific and direct knowledge about something, should they fein ignorance,
or proclaim what they know, even if it isn't in a form others might accept?
The former is neither honest or satisfying, and the latter can be risky.

>> I can appreciate your reasoning. I have a suggestion to break the logical
>> dilemma: give God an honest test. If you are honestly open to the
>> possibility that God may exist, and you simply seek confirmation, then
>> tell that to God. Put the ball in His court and see what He does. If He
>> does respond, then you have your answer. If He isn't there or He doesn't
>> respond, then at least you tried, and you can proceed with greater
>> confidence that God isn't there, or doesn't care. Either way, you lose
>> nothing. It's a win-win deal.
>
> From the perspective of science, figuring out what experiment to
> actually perform is often the hardest part. As an analogy, Stephen Hawkins
> knew he wanted to resolve once and for all whether or not information can
> escape from a black hole. But how can you come up with an experiment to
> test this?
>
> I'm sure a lot of open-minded atheists/agnostics (nevermind the
> closed-minded atheists ones for now) are willing to perform this test, if
> only they knew how.

I think a good starting point would be to go someplace private (no point in
embarrassing myself unless there's a reason :) and start talking to God as
if he can hear me. (If He's not there, or He won't listen, it's not going to
matter, and a God who couldn't hear isn't going to do me any good.) I would
tell God about my doubts, and that I would really like to know if He is
there, and ask Him to reveal Himself to me so that I could know that He is
real. It probably wouldn't hurt to throw in some thanks for any good stuff
He may have sent my way.

I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I have been really ticked at God on
occasion. I have complained and ranted, even been bitterly resentful and
sarcastic. I find that I can express my true feelings and doubts to God, and
He doesn't seem to resent it. At least, he hasn't blasted anything off me
yet. :-) Once I calm down and get quiet, I can feel His Spirit tugging at my
heart, as if He is saying "Come on, get over here and let Me give you a big
hug." How can I resist? :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: funny creationsist
    ... But there ISN'T any direct evidence - not one single scrap/ Care to ... is the supposed effect on other bodies, an effect for which scientists ... Your god isn't needed. ... Your never having had a supernatural event occur in your life has no ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Harshman & Wilkins: the frauds of secular Fundamentalism
    ... If God did not expect humans to use their intelligence, ... Well, if there was any such "observation" of design, that would be one ... Really,Ray, do ... becoming much more accepted by scientists up to the time of Wallace ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Harshman & Wilkins: the frauds of secular Fundamentalism
    ... Ray Martinez wrote: ... If God did not expect humans to use their intelligence, ... the observation of design in nature to indicate the work of invisible ... becoming much more accepted by scientists up to the time of Wallace ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ultimate Question: Does God Exist?
    ... The answer is not some made up god but "we just don't know'! ... find clues to the origin of the universe and our own Milky Way galaxy? ... scientists concluded that the universe contains ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • An intelligent discussion about life
    ... In the 1990s, before intelligent design was added to the ideas studied at Discovery Institute, I learned about an assault on the academic freedom of Dean Kenyon, a biologist and author at San Francisco State University who had come to view Darwin's theory as flawed. ... One after another of the demonstrations of the theory that supposedly were "certain" and "conclusive" when I was a student - such as Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings that showed various animals looking almost identical in the earliest stages of life - have been abandoned or replaced. ... Cars don't "evolve" in the way most Darwinists mean - an undirected process of small, incremental mutations acted on by natural selection to produce new species. ... Most ID scientists do believe in God and most Darwinists do not. ...
    (alt.politics)
Loading