Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Of course I do. Do you expect me to believe that you meant it as a compliment?
I specifically asked how/whether this esoteric math, which supposedly defines intelligence more eloquently than a dictionary, is capable of assessing the type or amount of intelligence needed to, for example, build a car. Or is this math simply an attempt at measuring the intelligence that resides within any given entity? Are you too smart to answer these questions in layman's terms?
Excellent report. Thank you.
Of course not, merely as an attempt at truth..
Which socialists HATE.. And since communism IS socialism little wonder.. they do..
Did I mention Saul Alinsky?.. Oh! yeah I did..
Whatever, pal.
Don't post to me again until you're ready to leave the insults behind. We're trying to have a grown-up discussion, and name calling isn't welcome.
I post mainly to lurkers. You are just a foil.. a canard..
ALL socialists are teenagers.. they never developed..
Very usefull too.. Socialists may be allowed on free republic however they are graded..
i.e. Saul Alinsky eat yer heart out..
Thanks..
I post mainly to lurkers. You are just a foil.. a canard..
ALL socialists are teenagers.. they never developed..
Very usefull too.. Socialists may be allowed on free republic however they are graded..
i.e. Saul Alinsky eat yer heart out..
Thanks..
Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." It began with the first humans. It is not as if a certain amount of precision is needed and then *VOILA* it's real science.
Sadly, we can’t count on this not happening again. Assuming Alito’s confirmation, and assuming that both Roberts and Alito are, in fact, exactly what we expect, The Supreme Court remains anything but Conservative. At best, the count is 4 - 1 - 4, with Kennedy being the swing vote. Kennedy, who listens far more to the DC cocktail circuit than he does The Constitution, is about as reliable as a Yugo. We might as well assume a 5 - 4 count against us.
And I've repeatedly stated that it is most certainly mathematically possible to assess the amount of intelligence needed to build a car. You merely do not like the answer that the amount of intelligence required to build a car is approximately zero. You keep asking the question and then dancing around the answer.
Or is this math simply an attempt at measuring the intelligence that resides within any given entity?
That you keep trying to make a distinction here betrays your ignorance of mathematics.
Are you too smart to answer these questions in layman's terms?
You are not even understanding the basics, which can be couched in layman's terms with modest effort. Given this, I find it unlikely that you would understand more advanced constructions that are built from and require thorough understanding of the basics.
Hell, I've spent a dozen posts trying to get you to accept that the Invariance Theorem and its consequences are valid, and that is elementary information theory. If you cannot handle the Chapter 1 of undergraduate information theory, you are definitely not ready for post-grad level information theory. There is no requirement that everything in the universe to be understandable by you in two hundred words or less.
Shall we try counting them, o thou of great mathematical reason? Spare me the hyperbole and hyperventilation. It is apparent enough that I am corresponding with someone who resides in a world of their own when they think it is somewhat uncertain whether a staute arises of its own accord or out of intelligent efforts.
Yeah:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense...
.....Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist 28
How about the Old Man of the Mountain?
Of course they are NOT.. If they were, they would not have been selected, let alone confirmed.. The lobbing scandal hanging now in D.C., is the tip of the iceberg.. The shredders are running on overload currently.. count on it.. And we have the best giverment money can buy.. Its not a new thing either..
It got much worse after Goldwater got "Borked".. by the American people.. Yes, the American people.. We have identified the enemy, and the enemy is "US".. If God gets deported, currently God being reviewed for deportment from mainstream America.. then it will get even worse..
I know, not a happy prospect.. But even here on Free republic the spiritual INS Agents.. have already revoked Gods green card.. They have no clue that "inalienable rights" are inalienable because of God.. it was his idea and God is the authority secureing them.. They(the spiritual INS Agents) think the federal giverment secures them.. Could be many think God is a joke and inalienable rights are also a joke.. <<- the last thing they would say publically.. would not want to git, the masses all lighting their "torches" and burning down the socialist frankenstein.. As the TV pundits all gush, "ITS ALIVE, ITS ALIVE"... And Hillary Clinton preens for display as the Queen of Mean..
Monte Python eat yer heart out.. Washington D.C. is as mid-evil a forest as any skit of your invention and design.. The Sandy Burgular affair was just comedy relief..
(( IF? ))... where'd that come from.. Hopefully you are not an optimist on a utopian quest.. Marx was the pied piper of utopian sheep.. Surely you have read Marx... LoL..
"How do you tell a Socialist:- It's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an Anti-Socialist someone who understands Marx and Lenin" -Ronald Reagan
Drool on, brother.
Miller was lead witness for the plaintiffs at the Dover trial. He presented his testimony, and was then cross-examined by the defense lawyers for two days. There were NO questions about his testimony. The defense lawyers did nothing but quote-mine his textbooks, bringing up statements and phrases that could possibly be construed to support the concept of ID. He said that this was a surprise, and that he had prepared to be challenged on his testimony, but that they never asked about that -- only his early writings. He had no problems at all with the cross-examination.Hah! Never be surprised to get argumentum ad quote-salad-um from creationists!
On the book, "Of Panda's And People," Miller recounted the discovery process where the plaintiff's lawyers found the original documents where all cognates of the word "Creation" were replaced with the equivalent "Design" words, and nothing else was changed. He asked, "Didn't they learn anything from the Nixon Administration? Why didn't they burn this stuff?"IIRC, they couldn't. The earliest published editions contained "creation" and "creationism" where they now have "design" and "intelligent design," etc.
Before or after God knocked his 4.5 billion-year-old chin and nose off? Either way, all rocks give evidence of intelligent design whether acted upon by man with implements or not. I tend to think this physical feature is not a product of human intervention, though there are some who want to build the rock back up. A little duct tape and some super glue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.