Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 220 220

Type it in Google, define: correlate

verb: correlate; 3rd person present: correlates; past tense: correlated; past participle: correlated; gerund or present participle: correlating

have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another. "the study found that success in the educational system correlates highly with class" synonyms: correspond to/with, match, parallel, agree with, tally with, tie in with, be consistent with, be compatible with, be consonant with, coordinate with, dovetail (with), relate to, conform to; More informalsquare with, jibe with "postal codes correlate with geographic location" antonyms: contrast establish a mutual relationship or connection between. "we should correlate general trends in public opinion with trends in the content of television news" synonyms: connect, analogize, associate, relate, compare, set side by side "we can correlate good health and physical fitness"

noun: correlate; plural noun: correlates

each of two or more related or complementary things. "strategies to promote health should pay greater attention to financial hardship and other correlates of poverty"

mid 17th century (as a noun): back-formation from correlation and correlative.

So I'm still not wrong.

Comment: Re:Creationism (Score 1) 445 445

Okay, you want to me to say your entire argument is invalid, fine, it is, you've put in place a designer, so who designed it? You want to claim a designer created life, well then that designer had to be designed. You've caused an infinite regression paradox, so try again. This time put some effort into it.

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 220 220

I live in Ontario and I can tell you that our tests are a joke, they really only test if you can work your head around the broken logic presented in badly worded questions in an attempt to see if you can provide an unrealistic answer. I was allowed to redo the grade 6 provincial standard test because I failed it, on the redo I was allowed a specialized test which was given orally and using hands on work. I aced it, top 1% of all marks, so don't tell me the tests work, they don't, they never have. I know I'm only one person but it happened to me, I wonder how many other people fall victim.

Comment: Re:Hilarious! (Score 1) 220 220

No, the SAT test is used to determine over all performance and one of those metrics is raw intelligence. After I failed the grade 6 standard test, I was given the chance for a redo, but in a different style that was hands on and verbal, I aced it in the top 1% of all results. If I failed the standard test but aced the special test, that goes to show one case where the standard test failed. Now I'm one result out of million, but how many other student are being screwed because the test just doesn't work?

Comment: Re:Creationism (Score 1) 445 445

Semi-valid is actually invalid. Come on, now. Break it or accept it.

No, semi-valid means it has some good points but not all the talking points are correct or complete.

As a design process, evolution is an undirected search over a design space, using an extremely weak filter of "does not die" to refine the design. Popularity aside, it's not a serious answer to human origin. It could sort of past muster when cells were thought to be blobs of simple chemicals, but we now know they are complex nano-factories running off of digital blueprints.

Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it doesn't make the point of answering what started it all, evolution only answers how we got from early bacterial life to modern man. Yes a cell is complex, very very complex, but that doesn't mean it needs a designer, just like really simple software modules, combine to make a complex module, the cell could function the same way and indeed must, as we know evolution as take bacteria to man, and that means information, in the form of generic material, has been created through replication.

Junk DNA has turned out to be nothing of the sort, and I believe "non-coding DNA" is related to control logic and error checking. And that's before we even start to look at symbiosis and ecosystems.

I never said junk DNA, 99.8% of all DNA is just the "house keeping" DNA, it's the same for every person, ti's the other .2% that makes me, me and you, you. I might have the percentages off, but none the less, the idea works.

How many retards does it take to equal a single intelligent designer? How many monkeys randomly hitting buttons and clicking "Compile" will replicate your work as a SW engineer?

Well if you take an infinite amount of time, a team of monkeys at some point, even randomly mashing on the keyboard will of course be able to replicate my work. I don't know the point of that analogy as it nither defends your side or disproves mine. A bomb could go off in a junk yard and a sports car could be assembled, sure the odd are damn close to 0% but it's still possible.

Intelligent design is just re-branded creationism, so that adults can sneak creationism into school and lie to children. The world looks designed, I've admitted that, however that doesn't mean God designed it. As I already said you would have to then explain who designed God, it's an infinite regression paradox.

Bearing in mind that failure is an option, there being no finite number is a very real possibility.

I agree that failure is an option, everything we know could be wrong.

The supposed natural origins of complex designs aren't anywhere close to being explanations. So we're left with the one known good explanation of design - intelligent design; one that was historically believed in, and consistent with any computer engineer's experience with information systems.

Again, I'm not debating the appearance of design, but even so, leave a computer running with a monitor plugged in, in a magnetic rich environment, you'll see the memory react and you'll see "garbage" in the memory and on the screen, yet no one design it. If you look at software bugs, you'll see events occur with the appearance of design that weren't designed. My point is that the appearance of design doesn't mean there was a designer.

No, I do not. I don't have to know anything about the designer of man, to recognize that something like a computer or a car is a designed object, and that those were designed by man. Extrapolating that true relationship to conclude that man too is a designed object is rational. Incomplete, perhaps, but working with incomplete information should not be anything new to an engineer. ("So you want me to buid you a widget but you don't know what you want ...")

I'll give you forgiveness in that I didn't answer abiogenesis, so I won't make you answer abiogod, but you would still have to show beyond all possible doubts that DNA could not started on earth without a designer, which is going to be hard because scientists have been able to create amino acids in a lab. Saying something looks designed there for a designer is non nonsensical, without showing who the designer is or proving it truly was designed.

Nothing about my argument says that every designer must have his own designer. It merely points out that man did not design himself and that man isn't even capable of designing himself; therefore this is evidence for the existence of a superior being that designed man.

It's poor argument because you've only really said that 1 didn't design 1 and there for God. Of course man didn't design man, that wouldn't make any sense, that would be the chicken and egg problem, which your assuming has to exist.

And no, it's not the one acceptable argument for god. It's the one that I like, though, and one that every techie should acknowledge. To deny it is like denying the existence of lolcats and porn on the Interwebz.

If you have another one go for it, I'll try it out, just don't try the moral argument or pascals wager, because they're easier to break then a pixie stick.

Computer Science is the only discipline in which we view adding a new wing to a building as being maintenance -- Jim Horning