| comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com | Google Groups |  |
| Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
- Visual C++ Version 6 (Visual Studio 98) - 17 Updates
- High Frequency Trading/C++ - 8 Updates
| "J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net>: Sep 14 08:06PM -0400 In article <9YSdnfTzBKI5jIvJnZ2dnUU7-QednZ2d@giganews.com>, flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk says... > > sheep and then lost one. Why do you think the parable of creation in > > Genesis is any different? > According to Jesus the Old Testament is true. Care to quote him on that? > According to Jesus Adam and Eve existed. Care to quote him on that? > Obviously Jesus never existed either (or if he did he > was only an ignorant human like Rick here). Why is it "obvious" that Jesus never existed? |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Sep 15 02:22AM +0200 On 15/09/14 02:06, J. Clarke wrote: >>> Genesis is any different? >> According to Jesus the Old Testament is true. > Care to quote him on that? I'll leave the quotes up to someone who reads the Bible more regularly, but I think he said something along the lines of "the old teachings are true". Of course, the OT as we know it did not exist at the time - it was created in the 4th century based on a selection of the Jewish holy books. At best, his comments on the OT were vague - and they were mostly to say that the "new deal" with god superseded the old eye-for-an-eye rulebook. But it is the only basis any Christians have for claiming that the OT is at all relevant (other than for partially historical cultural interest). >> According to Jesus Adam and Eve existed. > Care to quote him on that? I am pretty sure that they were not mentioned in the OT - but I am guessing that Mr. Flibble means that if Jesus said that the OT was true, that implies that /all/ of it is true. >> Obviously Jesus never existed either (or if he did he >> was only an ignorant human like Rick here). > Why is it "obvious" that Jesus never existed? I think that is just Mr. Flibble's slightly odd logic. Of course, there is incredibly little historical evidence that he /did/ exist (the Bible does not count as historical evidence) - certainly we would expect far more to have been written about him, given the amount of political and religious disruption claimed. (Obviously there was plenty of political and religious disruption caused later in his name, and there is plenty of evidence for the early Christians. But the historical picture is consistent with JC never having existed outside the stories told by the early evangelists.) |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 15 05:51PM +1200 Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > Ian, do you have any videos of presentations you've given? Or documents > outlining classes or sessions you've taught which are available to > the general public? No, all done on site for clients. And is your name pronounced eye or ee? ee -- Ian Collins |
| Stuart <DerTopper@web.de>: Sep 15 02:17PM +0200 On 09/13/14, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > better editing features. > And MSDEV98 and VC++ 6 for debugging. > Should be getting it next week. +1. I also found the VS2008 IDE very sluggish and missed the old VC 6.0 GUI very much (especially the WndTabs plugin :-( ). When I switched to 2008 I was very suprised that all my templates (I used CRTP extensively) continued to work without major problems, I just had to insert the keyword "typename" here and there. One of the major drawbacks of VC 6.0 is that it does not support Remote Debugging. I don't understand why you get so many angry responses in this thread. You use an ancient compiler that does not conform to the latest C++ standard, and you cannot write platform independent code. So what? Those people probably can't imagine that other programmers use C++ and still support only a single platform. Some of the anger probably stems from the fact that your post is only about VC++ (and BTW contains no actual question), so some of the others may not be able to make a useful contribution. Instead of telling you that you are a little bit off-topic here, they chose to bash you. Don't take it personally. Regards, Stuart |
| "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 15 05:41AM -0700 On Monday, September 15, 2014 8:18:32 AM UTC-4, Stuart wrote: > Instead of telling you that you are a little bit off-topic here, > they chose to bash you. Don't take it personally. Thank you, Stuart. I really appreciated your response. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 15 10:13AM -0500 On 9/14/2014 7:22 PM, David Brown wrote: > and there is plenty of evidence for the early Christians. But the > historical picture is consistent with JC never having existed outside > the stories told by the early evangelists.) Wow. comp.lang.c++.theology The scientific view takes just as much "faith" and has just as many things that "cannot be proven." If there was a big bang, and I am not arguing that there wasn't or was, where did this super dense mass come from? What was the cause in the scientific cause and effect? What came before that? Eventually you have to just throw your hands up in the air and say "It just was." Why did chaos become order, contrary to science's own law? How did single cell organisms become multicell organisms? There is a gap there in every biology book. I think science takes just as much 'faith', but for some reason people don't have such a problem with "we'll just accept that the magical super dense ball in the sky just was" Also, I don't see how evolution 'proves' that God does not exist or that Adam did not exist. I've never heard the latter argument before. but meh. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 15 06:04PM +0100 On 15/09/2014 01:22, David Brown wrote: >>>> Genesis is any different? >>> According to Jesus the Old Testament is true. >> Care to quote him on that? When confronted by Satan, Jesus appealed to the Old Testament as a source of authority by stating, "It is written," (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). "Your word is truth," (NASB, Jn. 17:17). > I am pretty sure that they were not mentioned in the OT - but I am > guessing that Mr. Flibble means that if Jesus said that the OT was true, > that implies that /all/ of it is true. No. Jesus affirmed the historical existence of Jonah (Matt. 12:40), Noah (Matt. 24:37-38), and Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4-6). >>> was only an ignorant human like Rick here). >> Why is it "obvious" that Jesus never existed? > I think that is just Mr. Flibble's slightly odd logic. Evolution proves the OT to be false; Jesus claimed it was true ergo Jesus was not divine but simply an ignorant human (if he existed at all). /Flibble |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 15 06:10PM +0100 On 15/09/2014 16:13, Christopher Pisz wrote: > Also, I don't see how evolution 'proves' that God does not exist or that > Adam did not exist. I've never heard the latter argument before. > but meh. Reality MIGHT be a mathematical structure describing an infinite multiverse of "simulated" universes (the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis or MUH). If MUH is true then there need be no beginning (or end) because, for example, mathematical axioms have always existed (1+1 has always been equal to 2 even before the Big Bang of our universe). /Flibble |
| Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Sep 15 07:43PM +0200 Christopher Pisz wrote 2014-09-15 17:13: > Wow. comp.lang.c++.theology Ok, so lets try comp.lang.c++.physics > The scientific view takes just as much "faith" and has just as many > things that "cannot be proven." But in science it is accepted that some things aren't proven (yet), abd that a new theory can improve on the old one if it offers a better explanation or better predicts the outcome experiments. > If there was a big bang, and I am not arguing that there wasn't or was, > where did this super dense mass come from? What was the cause in the > scientific cause and effect? We don't know exactly. The big bang theory is a but fuzzy about the first 10^-44 seconds... > What came before that? Nothing. Not only did space blow up (=expand) in the big bang, so did time. Asking what happened BEFORE time appeared isn't all that meaningful, as things like "before" and "after" didn't yet exist. How can we know what happened before the notion of "before" existed? > biology book. I think science takes just as much 'faith', but for some > reason people don't have such a problem with "we'll just accept that the > magical super dense ball in the sky just was" Science doesn't pretend to explain everything. Physics in particular just offers cute formulas for predicting the outcome of some experiments. If we can use that knowledge to build computers or send a man to the moon, the formulas are considered pretty correct. Until someone discovers a discrepancy and wins himself a Nobel prize. And unlike religion, at that point we don't pull out our old books to prove him wrong. We buy some new books instead. Bo Persson |
| drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson): Sep 15 05:45PM In article <651b019d-b547-46c4-92b4-4bded1b9e123@googlegroups.com> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: [re: Flibble] >(2) You are one of the most hostile people I've ever encountered on a >newsgroup. Really? Either you just got your first account, or you've been hanging out in alt.cuddle with an aggressive killfile. By standards of Usenet hostility, Fibble is nearly a daycare worker. -- Drew Lawson | What is an "Oprah"? | -- Teal'c | |
| drew@furrfu.invalid (Drew Lawson): Sep 15 05:51PM In article <c7omp6Fq6f5U1@mid.individual.net> >Science doesn't pretend to explain everything. Unfortunately, many people who claim to speak for Science often claim that it does. And that, IMO, leads to these tiresome pseudo-debates. -- Drew Lawson | We were taking a vote when | the ground came up and hit us. | -- Cylon warrior |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 15 02:07PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 12:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Evolution proves the OT to be false I think your premise itself needs a few more premises in order to be a conclusion. I for one have no idea how evolution proves the OT to be false. Are you talking about the fictional kind of evolution that claims we came from monkeys? Or the scientific kind? |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 15 08:11PM +0100 On 15/09/2014 20:07, Christopher Pisz wrote: > conclusion. I for one have no idea how evolution proves the OT to be > false. Are you talking about the fictional kind of evolution that claims > we came from monkeys? Or the scientific kind? If Adam never existed then the whole Old Testament falls down like a house of cards. Evolution shows us that humans evolved: there was no first human called "Adam". /Flibble |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 15 02:13PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 12:43 PM, Bo Persson wrote: > time. Asking what happened BEFORE time appeared isn't all that > meaningful, as things like "before" and "after" didn't yet exist. > How can we know what happened before the notion of "before" existed? This is the bit that is just as hard to swallow for me as any religious explanation. The concept of time not existing and suddenly existing for no known reason is equivalent to a God that always existed in my mind. I won't try to convince anyone of anything, but I will argue that the scientific cannot be "proven" any more than the religious one can. The multiverse explanation is even harder for me to buy. While, I won't claim to be up to speed on physics. Didn't the measurement of the Higgs somehow destroy the multiverse concept? That's what I saw on Discovery Channel anyway...Discovery Channel isn't very good with their explanations. |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 15 02:15PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 2:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > house of cards. Evolution shows us that humans evolved: there was no > first human called "Adam". > /Flibble Humans evolving and evolving from another species are two entirely different things. I don't believe the latter has been proven at all. Many accept it to be true, because it is the only thing that would make sense if you believe the rest of the biological theory, but claiming that it has been proven is making a very large leap imo. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 15 08:20PM +0100 On 15/09/2014 20:15, Christopher Pisz wrote: > Many accept it to be true, because it is the only thing that would make > sense if you believe the rest of the biological theory, but claiming > that it has been proven is making a very large leap imo. You don't seem to understand evolution then mate; evolution is two things: FACT and THEORY. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory Also mate there is not one single proven scientific theory as scientific theories cannot be proven, only disproven. You should have paid more attention in school mate. /Flibble |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Sep 15 02:21PM -0500 On 9/15/2014 2:15 PM, Christopher Pisz wrote: > Many accept it to be true, because it is the only thing that would make > sense if you believe the rest of the biological theory, but claiming > that it has been proven is making a very large leap imo. and in addition, even if humans did evolve from an entirely different species, I still don't see how that disproves the existence of the first human. Perhaps it would make the concept of him being created in a single day harder for one to swallow, but even then, you would be looking at it at the point of view that doesn't want to believe in a creator that formed the laws that people claim disprove his existence in the first place. Perhaps the first human was created in a single day and then evolution took place after being expelled from the garden of eden. Who knows. either way, nothing is proven or disproven and by its nature cannot be. |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 11:41AM -0700 Have you taken all your meds yet Victor? Or are you always this hostile? |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 11:42AM -0700 THANK YOU for a sensible and considerate reply!! |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 02:47PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 2:41 PM, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Have you taken all your meds yet Victor? Or are you always this hostile? So you are back? Could stay away long, could you? Glad to have you, Robert! I see you're learning the art of newsgroup flame war. When no technical argumentation left at your disposal, attack on the personal level! Keep it up! V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 11:52AM -0700 Okay, I WILL keep it up! |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 11:54AM -0700 Oh Victor. <SIGN> ..what a shame that you are on this forum. |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 02:55PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 2:52 PM, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Okay, I WILL keep it up! Glad you're all we expected you to be, Robert! V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| Robert Hutchings <rm.hutchings@gmail.com>: Sep 15 11:56AM -0700 Uh, are you English-challenged sir? I thought so. Oh well, I guess I'll go ahead and "top-post" something... |
| Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 15 03:00PM -0400 On 9/15/2014 2:54 PM, Robert Hutchings wrote: > Oh Victor. <SIGN> ..what a shame that you are on this forum. I guess you meant "<SIGH>"... Shame? Care to elaborate? Do *you* feel shame? Or should somebody else feel shame because they are somehow responsible? And for what, exactly? V -- I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment