- C++ Middleware Writer - 18 Updates
- cmsg cancel <nhnmu1$8bm$1@dont-email.me> - 1 Update
- I have decided that will port my scalable parallel conjugate gradient to C++.. - 1 Update
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 20 04:52PM +0200 On 20/05/16 15:34, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> of the stories in the book. I do /not/ claim to be able to "disprove" >> the book, however.) > Sorry, you did claim the book was fictional, by your attributions. The "attributions" are lines such as "On 20/05/16 02:39, Jerry Stuckle wrote:". They don't belong to anyone - they indicate who wrote what. And if you look back at the chain of posts to where someone said Genesis was fictional, without any conditional statements, you'll find it was not I who said that. I /have/ said that the book is basically fictional, until proved otherwise. The same is true of anything else that makes outstanding claims. > Make up your mind. At first you claimed there was no evidence that any > of the stories in Genesis were anything but fiction. Now you're trying > to pick and chose what you want to believe and what you don't. There is no evidence - of which I am aware - that any of the stories in Genesis are anything but fiction. But like all fiction and myths, there is usually some basis in fact. There is the story in Genesis about slavery in Egypt. The story is, as far as I know, fiction - though I don't claim that I can prove that, or even that it is provable. However, the country of Egypt is real. There may well be other parts that are factual - possibly there were some Israelites taken as slaves in Egypt - but the real story itself, especially the key points of divine intervention, is a myth. This stuff really isn't very hard. And if you want to "pick and choose what you believe and what you don't", just ask any Christian. They have plenty of experience with which parts of the Bible they choose to believe and which rules to obey, and which parts they consider to be allegorical and which rules to ignore. (The same applies to other religions and their holy texts.) >> masses after extremely heavy rainfall around 4000 BC". > Yes, there is evidence there was a big flood in that time frame - > covering the world as the ancients knew it at the time. No, there is not. There is plenty of evidence of a variety of big floods at different places and different times though ancient history. There is no evidence whatsoever of floods that covered "the world as the ancients knew it at the time" - there simply have not been such large floods or geological movements of landmasses within that timeframe. And even if that /were/ the case, and there had been a flood covering the area of Israel, Palestine, and even the entire Middle East, that would not substantiate the story in Genesis. Genesis does not talk about a flood covering the little bit of the world known to ancient Jews - it talks about a flood covering the /entire/ world, as known to /God/, who, it claims, made everything in the first place. Genesis does not claim to be a history of events in the Jewish world - but a history of events in the entirety of creation, covering /all/ humans, animals, etc. The viewpoint concentrates on the Jews - after all, they were "God's chosen people", according to the book. So we are back to zero evidence of a flood as described in Genesis, and no links or references. (I can find plenty of "flood evidence" links with Google, but they are all patently nonsense or wildly speculative and tenuous circumstantial links. The only related archaeology references are for things like Babylonian tablets that pre-date the beginning of the Genesis world, with earlier stories that the Genesis authors likely copied.) > Wrong again. You need to be studying up on the archaeology before > making such stupid claims. You only show your ignorance - and closed > mindedness. Simply repeating the assertion that I am wrong is a very weak argument. How about some links? Of course, the links need to be to real science or archaeology, where possible conclusions are drawn from the evidence rather than religious sites where the "truth" of Genesis is taken as an assumption and the evidence is interpreted to fit. >> fiction of the garden of Eden. > I suggest you look into the archaeological studies in that area of the > world - especially in the last 40 years or so. Links? > I'm the one who admits there are possibilities to the truth in Genesis. > You're the one who claims otherwise. The latter is the sign of a closed > mind. You misunderstand what it really means to be open minded or closed minded, and you make the common mistake of thinking that being "more open minded" is always better. It is good to be aware of your own ignorance, the possibility that you are wrong, and the possibility that scientists, historians, archaeologists, and other experts will one day find evidence that significantly changes the current body of accepted knowledge. (That is, after all, what all such experts strive after - they like nothing better than proving their predecessors wrong.) That is being "open minded". But believing myths that clearly run contrary to what we know of the rest of the world is not "open minded" - it requires a very determined /closed/ mind to accept that sort of thing. And even believing that it is /possible/ that this stuff is true, makes a mockery of knowledge, understanding and rational thought. If I told you that some people are convinced that even numbers are evil, while odd numbers are good, are you "closed minded" if you say this is nonsense? Do you feel that - in order to be "open minded" - you have to consider the possibility that this is true, and therefore avoid using even numbers where possible since they could be evil? (Note that in all this, I am not saying anything about a general belief in God - just about the modern idea of trying to interpret the OT as being literal truth in some sense, and the even more modern idea of trying to find "evidence" for it.) |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 20 11:13AM -0400 On 5/20/2016 10:07 AM, David Brown wrote: >> there was a first man. Only to acknowledge there was a first man. > Neither you (or anyone else) had a "first" thought. The process is > emergent. The same covers a huge variety of other processes. Wrong again. Everyone has a "first thought". Whether the process is emergent or not, it starts otherwise. > idea is a common mistake made by people who do not understand emergence, > and try to use black-and-white definitions in an attempt to justify > claiming that a creation myth is realistic. So you're saying either man has existed forever (since before the beginning of the universe), or man does not exist at all. Which is it? > There was no single point of creation of the earth, nor a single point > when life emerged (and no first lifeform). There is no point at which a > piece of string stops being "short" and becomes "long". I guess YOU never had a "first thought". But the rest of the world did. Even my cat had a "first thought". The other comments are just unrelated arguments which prove nothing. > transitions and changes, one can say "this is definitely water" or "this > is definitely a collection of water molecules that is too small to have > the properties we associate with water". But there are no fixed boundaries. Even a gradual transition starts somewhere. > alternative references. There is plenty on Wikipedia that is > questionable, but also plenty that is very good - just like many other > sources. That is correct. It is neither reliable nor authoritative. It is a bunch of blogs often written by people who have no real idea what they are talking about. And even you admit that plenty is "questionable" - which means it is unreliable and not authoritative. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 20 11:27AM -0400 On 5/20/2016 10:52 AM, David Brown wrote: > not I who said that. > I /have/ said that the book is basically fictional, until proved > otherwise. The same is true of anything else that makes outstanding claims. That's right. And you refuse to look at the proof because your mind is closed. > that are factual - possibly there were some Israelites taken as slaves > in Egypt - but the real story itself, especially the key points of > divine intervention, is a myth. The only reason you are not aware of evidence is because your mind is closed. No, you won't find evidence if you don't look at it. > This stuff really isn't very hard. You are correct. It's very easy to dismiss any proof when you have a closed mind. > which parts of the Bible they choose to believe and which rules to obey, > and which parts they consider to be allegorical and which rules to > ignore. (The same applies to other religions and their holy texts.) You don't know Christians very well, do you? But that's typical of you. Your mind is made up - don't confuse you with the facts. > There is no evidence whatsoever of floods that covered "the world as the > ancients knew it at the time" - there simply have not been such large > floods or geological movements of landmasses within that timeframe. Once again you refuse to look at the facts because your mind is closed. > events in the entirety of creation, covering /all/ humans, animals, etc. > The viewpoint concentrates on the Jews - after all, they were "God's > chosen people", according to the book. To the people of the time, that WAS the whole world. > references are for things like Babylonian tablets that pre-date the > beginning of the Genesis world, with earlier stories that the Genesis > authors likely copied.) No, we are back to you having a closed mind and refuse to look at alternatives. > or archaeology, where possible conclusions are drawn from the evidence > rather than religious sites where the "truth" of Genesis is taken as an > assumption and the evidence is interpreted to fit. Well, let's see. To start: http://bfy.tw/5rjm http://bfy.tw/5rjg >> I suggest you look into the archaeological studies in that area of the >> world - especially in the last 40 years or so. > Links? See above. You're obviously too stoopid to do a simple Google search. > requires a very determined /closed/ mind to accept that sort of thing. > And even believing that it is /possible/ that this stuff is true, makes > a mockery of knowledge, understanding and rational thought. No, I understand what open minded and closed minded mean. And you are close minded - which is ALWAYS worse. You will not admit to your ignorance, and will not admit the possibility that you are wrong - as you have shown previously. And dismissing something because *you* believe it is a myth is quite close minded. Open minded means accepting that these "myths" as you call them *may* be based on fact, and *may* be telling a story about the world as people of the time knew it. > nonsense? Do you feel that - in order to be "open minded" - you have to > consider the possibility that this is true, and therefore avoid using > even numbers where possible since they could be evil? Yes, I would be close minded if I said that is nonsense. There very well may be people who believe that. > in God - just about the modern idea of trying to interpret the OT as > being literal truth in some sense, and the even more modern idea of > trying to find "evidence" for it.) No, you are as closed minded as they come. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl>: May 20 06:52PM +0200 Op 20-May-16 om 3:43 AM schreef Jerry Stuckle: >> /Flibble > Nope. Either mankind had a start, which means someone didn't have > parents, or mankind existed forever. Which is it? Neither: being human is not pure yes / no predicate. Just you cannot point out the exact atom that you can add to a non-mountain to make it a mountain. Wouter "objects? No Thanks" van Ooijen (shit, I responded to a non-C++ discussion. sorry) |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: May 20 08:51PM +0300 On 20.05.2016 18:13, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> claiming that a creation myth is realistic. > So you're saying either man has existed forever (since before the > beginning of the universe), or man does not exist at all. Which is it? Jerry, you are right. Given a suitable definition of "first man", one can easily prove there indeed was a "first man". For example, there was a certain living creature who was the last common ancestor of currently living humans and any other currently living species. We can define "first man" as the oldest child of this last common ancestor whose all currently living descendants are humans. As his/her parent, he/she also was a very concrete living creature who lived ca 6-8 million years ago. There are a couple of problems with this definition. First, this "first man" was an immediate descendant of a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, so it did not resemble much current humans, but was instead much more similar to the common ancestor specie of humans and chimpanzees. Second, this definition is not stable. Suppose that chimpanzees and bonobos (who split off from chimpanzees only 2 million years ago) become extinct. Then gorillas would become the closest relative of humans, but this divergence happened earlier, so now the "first man" would be another creature and it lived ca 2 million years before our original "first man". But supposing these complications do not trouble you and you agree with this definition, then yes, there was such a first man living on this planet who we are all descending from. |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: May 20 08:57PM +0300 On 20.05.2016 20:51, Paavo Helde wrote:> > For example, there was a certain living creature who was the last common > ancestor of currently living humans and any other currently living > species. s/any/some/ |
| Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee>: May 20 09:11PM +0300 On 20.05.2016 20:51, Paavo Helde wrote: > ancestor of currently living humans and any other currently living > species. We can define "first man" as the oldest child of this last > common ancestor whose all currently living descendants are humans. s/oldest child/first descendant/. ... jees, genetics is hard ... |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 20 07:45PM +0100 > On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:55:41 PM UTC-5, > Leigh, please don't swear here. Brian, fuck off. |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 20 08:46PM +0200 On 20/05/16 17:13, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> claiming that a creation myth is realistic. > So you're saying either man has existed forever (since before the > beginning of the universe), or man does not exist at all. Which is it? The whole point is that this is not a binary question, so the both your suggestions here are incorrect. Man has not existed forever, man does exist, but there was no "first man". There was no transition where one day there were ape-like humanoids, and the next day was born the first man. The concept simply doesn't make sense. I guess there is little point in continuing this, since you seem incapable or unwilling to read, and I am merely repeating myself. |
| Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: May 20 07:47PM +0100 On 20/05/2016 08:22, David Brown wrote: > So repeatedly claiming "evolution disproves God" is as pointless as > repeatedly asking people to "please don't swear here". Both show an > impressive stubbornness and lack of thought. More tedious bullshit. Again: evolution is BOTH fact and theory and evolution being a FACT proves that Genesis is a FICTION. /Flibble |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: May 20 12:08PM -0700 On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 1:45:44 PM UTC-5, Mr Flibble "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the L-rd delivers him out of them all." Psalms 34:19 Brian Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net |
| red floyd <no.spam@its.invalid>: May 20 01:33PM -0700 > On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 5:55:41 PM UTC-5, > Leigh, please don't swear here. > Brian Brian, please don't proselytize here. |
| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: May 20 04:55PM -0400 On 5/20/2016 2:46 PM, David Brown wrote: > exist, but there was no "first man". There was no transition where one > day there were ape-like humanoids, and the next day was born the first > man. The concept simply doesn't make sense. There still had to be one person who first fit the description of "man". That would be the first "man". > I guess there is little point in continuing this, since you seem > incapable or unwilling to read, and I am merely repeating myself. Oh, I'm willing to read, all right. But you're right - there is no reason to continue this. I am arguing with a closed mind. It's just as productive as teaching a pig to sing. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com>: May 20 11:25PM +0200 On 20.05.2016 20:47, Mr Flibble wrote: > Again: evolution is BOTH fact and theory and > evolution being a FACT proves that Genesis is a FICTION. Well that's two large issues in one sentence: • Is evolution a fact? Facts sometimes turn out to be wrong, but evolution is an unavoidable LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE. So evolution is one example of something that can't be disproved or dismissed. In a context without advanced genetics technology it's impossible that those (individuals, societies, ideas, whatever) who have no descendants, are not those whose inheritable traits are not passed on. • Can religious belief be disproved? Not in general. Any fact you throw at a religious belief that is based on the notion of all powerful deities, can be dismissed (by the religious) with notion that some deity has made the world to APPEAR with evidence like yours. More in general anything can be proved from a falsehood, and the key feature of religious belief is that it's irrational, completely nuts in some way, which is how we recognize it. So, summing up, one can't dismiss evolution with logic or facts, because evolution is itself just a simple logical consequence, and one can't dismiss religion with logic or facts, either. One can however dismiss evolution with belief, just as one can dismiss the notion that 2+2 = 4. It would be nuts. But they are. Cheers & hth., - Alf |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: May 20 02:37PM -0700 On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 3:33:44 PM UTC-5, red floyd wrote: > > Leigh, please don't swear here. > > Brian > Brian, please don't proselytize here. I think that's the same as "don't be happy here." Happiness is fine here. Swearing isn't. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net |
| Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>: May 20 11:51PM +0200 >> Brian, please don't proselytize here. > I think that's the same as "don't be happy here." > Happiness is fine here. Swearing isn't. That's only your view. For me, swearing is OK, but proselytizing isn't. Christian |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: May 20 03:28PM -0700 On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 4:51:38 PM UTC-5, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > > Happiness is fine here. Swearing isn't. > That's only your view. For me, swearing is OK, but proselytizing isn't. > Christian Okay. Unlike some here I don't try to suppress your views. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises http://webEbenezer.net |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: May 20 03:34PM -0700 > > Christian > Okay. Unlike some here I don't try to > suppress your views. I'm free to nag though at those who swear here and free to work to preserve/create a friendly place for people of faith interested in C++. Brian |
| bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: May 20 09:04PM +0200 |
| Ramine <ramine@1.1>: May 20 03:05PM -0700 Hello, I have decided that will port my scalable parallel conjugate gradient to C++.. I will port this one that is a Parallel implementation of Conjugate Gradient Sparse Linear System Solver library: https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/parallel-implementation-of-conjugate-gradient-sparse-linear-system-solver And i will port also this one to C++ that is not sparse and that is scalable on NUMA architecture: https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/scalable-parallel-implementation-of-conjugate-gradient-linear-system-solver-library-that-is-numa-aware-and-cache-aware I will not use C++ operator overloading, i will use an interface with methods like this: void setElement(long2 r, long2 c, double e); double getElement (long2 r, long2 c); Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane. |
| 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