But the fact stands that both evolved or originated from dust.
What, specifically originated from "dust"? What was this "dust" made of? Does it still exist? What's your evidence for this?
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?
But the fact stands that both evolved or originated from dust.
What, specifically originated from "dust"? What was this "dust" made of? Does it still exist? What's your evidence for this?
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?
Viviane you still haven't answered bohm's reply to your challenge to name an evolving computer program.
Yes, I did. And it wasn't a challenge, it was a request for proof of EoMs claim (which bohm was also unable to answer).
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?
..evidently...the question is not to name a computer program that can evolve...evidently...
Protip: Adding "evidently" to your own mistake doesn't make me look bad. You screwed up. It happens. You let your feelings for me get the best of you.
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?
Stuff - Do you have anything to add to the topic of this thread?
I've asked that several times. Stuff won't even response. Apparently his devotion to epistimiology extends to and embraces "Run away! Run away!"
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?
there doing this right under my nose but i just found out.
not sure what to do but would like your help on getting me wt information on my headship role and how they shouldn't be doing this with out my permission.
also would like some help on showing my son the ramifications on what happens to someone when they get baptized and how they'll expect him to treat me.
there doing this right under my nose but i just found out.
not sure what to do but would like your help on getting me wt information on my headship role and how they shouldn't be doing this with out my permission.
also would like some help on showing my son the ramifications on what happens to someone when they get baptized and how they'll expect him to treat me.
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.
An IT consultant Viviane? That explains a lot. Accustomed to tell everyone that you know better and walk away with a check. Never actually having to put the sweat in to make it happen.
People often fall back on that when they've got no actual argument against reality. It's basically name calling on your part, making ignorant assumptions and assertions about what I do and how I do it because your own words prove you wrong and your only recourse is to lash out at me in a vain attempt to feel good about yourself. So, yeah, it DOES say a lot, and all of it about you, none of it good.
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?
This is fairly easy. You can find many examples of evolving computer program within the field of evolutionary computing. To start you can go to google scholar and search for "genetic algorithm" (1.9mio hits), or if you prefer an ordering by application domain and specific programs check out the list on wikipedia:
That's not at all what the question was.
I notice you appended "on it's own" to EOM's statement.
No, I didn't do that at all. Read more closely.
This would (strictly speaking!) make your statement true since a computer program "on it's own" presumably would be a computer program without a medium to run it, however this would clearly also be a strawman.
Of course it isn't. I didn't misrepresent his argument or change it. The question was asked very specifically the way it was do demonstrate the teleological error or saying that because programs today must to designed to evolve, then biology must have been also.
Far from a strawman, the whole point of that was to compare and contrast computing technology with biology and highlight the dangers of attempting to retroactively assign meaning and make assumptions about past events based on a completely unrelated event today, particularly when the poster has demonstrated a poor understanding of both.
That could have been a fruitful and engaging discussion has EoM chosen not to abandon it. You simply missed the entire point in your desire to create a "gotcha" moment with me.
BTW, EoM, this is a GREAT example of me making sure I can back up what I post, despite your thoughts otherwise.
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?
All facts are beliefs.
Untrue.
They are not being intellectually dishonest. They are just being ignorant or wrong.
They have been told and choose to remain ignorant.
Someone who is aware that "facts" belong in the catagory of "belief", but who continues to say that "you don't have to believe a fact", would be intellectually dishonest.
Why wod someone believe that to be true?
What value are you adding?