i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
Google is your friend
Google didn't make the assertion, you did. Time to back it up if you expect to be taken seriously.
It this point, it simply sounds like you read a shitty paper, took a complete misunderstanding of science, DNA, teleology, computing, logic and forming and argument and ran with it and now are trying to get of out backing up a single thing you claimed.
That about sum it up?
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
Damnit Viv that was my word!!
I know. I'm crafty like that.
Let's look at a textbook definition of it
Wikipedia is not a textbook.
Actually I should have just told you to read a basic 5th grade science book to understand DNA then get back to me.
Why, is that your level of understanding? If so, it would explain a lot...
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
So you 'think' so I'm clearly wrong. A lot more than just 2 people have 'thought' you are wrong too so with everything you've ever said you are clearly wrong!
Of course I don't 'think' you're wrong. Observable reality simply shows it to be. As for the rest of your comment, well, no one asked you show that you've trouble constructing a valid argument makes sense, but you did it anyway.
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
Computer programs absolutely can evolve!
Awesome, name a computer program that evolved on it's own.
And it's only a matter of time before one is made that will be similar to a newborn child in which it's able to constantly take in information and learn and execute it's own made up decisions
How is that relevant to your assertion?
We have the hard drive space capacities to house all the information and code needed, processing speed, etc
Please show me those calculations.
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
I thought the article was amazingly done and had a great way of explaining how I view DNA as well being a programmer.
I;'ve seen that article. He is attempting to reverse apply puposeful design by humans using manufactured software and hardware onto biological evolution. It's a huge mistake in logic and philosophy (teleological mistakes, to be specific) that undermines his entire argument.
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
DNA and genetics operate so closely to computer programming you can view them as a computer program.
That is absolutely untrue. Once again you show an uninformed and uneducated opinion on the topic.
Once the foundation is created, you can sit back and let it do it's thing.
That's not how life, programming, application development or computing infrastructures work at all.
Understanding how programming works and knowing how genetics and DNA and how DNA turns from code/instructions into the billions of life forms on Earth, I see it working as biological computers and biological code
You're comparing something that happens and evolves due to physics to something that's created with a specific purpose and cannot evolve. In what way are they the same?
here is an idea i tested.
works at both assemblies and conventions.
i have noticed at the last convention and at my last assembly that when i opened up my wifi setting, tons of hotspots came up for people tethering their tablets to their smart phones.
Would it be possible to have a strong enough signal that you could sit in a car in the lot or on the street?
That way anyone could do it at any assembly or convention and not have to actually attend.
Not really. WiFi signals have pretty steep drop off in range,particularly if anything is blocking them like walls. You can achieve pretty high range through directional antennas, but you need one on the other end as well. I live in an older historic house with plaster walls, I have to use a NightHawk R7000 router rated for 8000 square feet just to cover my 2600 square foot house and get consistent signal throughout.
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
With all the advances in science, still no 'fact' answer on where we came from and how we and all life on Earth came to be, just theories.
You're free to stop using anything that is a result of science if you truly think it has so little value. Before you do, however, understand that a theory in science is supported by evidence, experiment, observation and has been shown to have predictive powers.
All you've shown is that you fundamentally have no knowledge of the very thing you use to tell us how lacking it is.
here is an idea i tested.
works at both assemblies and conventions.
i have noticed at the last convention and at my last assembly that when i opened up my wifi setting, tons of hotspots came up for people tethering their tablets to their smart phones.
I can turn it on and off remotely as well (ssh into it from command prompt on my phone).
Have you looked into Hacker's Keyboard for Android?
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
Evidentialism is an epistemological position
How does that help us?
