Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thoughts on the Creator Conclusion
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 76 of 187 (604158)
02-10-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Adequate
02-10-2011 4:14 AM


Re: Tree
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
A house blueprint is a set of instructions for making a house.
No it isn't. It's a diagram of what the house should look like when it's built. It contains no instructions whatsoever as to how this aim is to be achieved. From the blueprint alone, one wouldn't even know that it is necessary to build the ground floor before building the upstairs.
I am glad you are not in the construction business.
If the first page of a blueprint which is a rendition of what the finished product including landscaping, and driveways will look like is all you would ever look at to build the house you would probably leave out a lot of things that the inspector would look at on the bluprints and ask why you did not put them in.
Like on the foundation page where it shows the cross sections of the foundation and gives the exact dimensions the footer is to built too. With the number and size of rebar with the distance the rebar chairs are to be set to hold the rebar off the ground that has been compacted to the density specified. The placement and method of connection of the verticle rebar that must be eventually extended to the lintel. The treatment the ground must undergo before you can pour the concrete at the specified psi.
There are many other instructions on the footer page but I think that is enough for you to get the idea you are blowing smoke.
BTW there is also a framing page, an external wall page, a HVAC page, a plumbing page, a electrical page, a roofing page.
Each of these pages give the specific instructions where each of the different items are to be placed, as well as their specifications.
So you are confusing a picture with a blueprint.
That would be the same as looking at a cell and saying that is the DNA of the cell.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2011 4:14 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 12:07 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 106 by Theodoric, posted 02-10-2011 8:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 77 of 187 (604159)
02-10-2011 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
02-10-2011 4:19 AM


Re: Initial Questions
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
Your belief that the universe was created ex nihilo does not affect this point.
Have you never read anything I have written?
You should know by now that I do not believe in ex nihilo creation of the universe.
I believe the universe has always existed.
Science is the one that demands the universe have a beginning not me.
Now if you could give the the exact date of "In the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 I would have to agree that the universe did not exist past that date and had to have a beginning to exist.
I may be dense, I may be dumb, I may be uneducated but I am not stupid. But it is impossible to get something to exist out of non existence.
Now if you would like to educate me as to how existence could begin to exist out of non existence please start a thread and let the teaching begin.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2011 4:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 78 of 187 (604160)
02-10-2011 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Blue Jay
02-10-2011 10:23 AM


Re: Tree
Hi jay,
Bluejay writes:
I hope this makes more sense now.
Are you telling me all those trees came from the same seed?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 10:23 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 12:16 PM ICANT has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 187 (604163)
02-10-2011 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by ICANT
02-10-2011 3:14 AM


Re: Tree
Maybe you are right and nobody else knows what they are talking about.
As usual it's just you who doesn't know what they're talking about; none of those sources actually contradict me in any way.
DNA doesn't contain any instructions for building organisms. DNA contains instructions for building proteins, and almost nothing else. Actual blueprints don't contain any instructions at all, they contain homology between the finished construction of the item and the diagrams on the blueprint paper. DNA has almost no homology to the actual organisms its inside; there's nothing that looks like a branch or a leaf inside the DNA of a tree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 3:14 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 1:04 PM crashfrog has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 80 of 187 (604166)
02-10-2011 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Taq
02-10-2011 11:27 AM


Re: Tree
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
All of which are different than DNA. If you throw a blueprint onto a pile of building materials does a house appear? No. If you throw DNA into a cell is something built from that DNA? Yes. Obviously, there is something very different between a blueprint and DNA.
I don't think I ever said DNA and a blueprint are the same thing.
I did say a house blueprint contains a set of instructions from the preparations of the ground to the finish product of a house including everything in the house and even the landscaping of the lot. That is what is required before you can get a building permit.
I did say the DNA of a tree cell contains a set of instructions to build the structure in which that cell resides.
The house blueprint is not a living organism thus requires human intervention to acomplish its goal.
The DNA is part of a living organism and is self replicating and only requires its beginning to exist to be able to reproduce its self as the designer specified.
So yes they are quite different.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 11:27 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 12:09 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 12:13 PM ICANT has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 81 of 187 (604167)
02-10-2011 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
02-10-2011 11:38 AM


Re: Tree
I am glad you are not in the construction business.
It continues to astound that you expect us to believe you are.
Like on the foundation page where it shows the cross sections of the foundation and gives the exact dimensions the footer is to built too.
Right, but there's no instructions on how to build foundations. The blueprint doesn't say how to use an excavator to excavate a pit. It doesn't say how to build forms or mix and pour concrete. It simply specifies the finished dimensions of the foundation - in biological terms, we say that the blueprint contains a homology between the finished dimensions of the foundation and the diagrams of the foundation on the paper
Blueprints don't contain instructions, unless in the rare instance the architect can't rely on the builders to know how to build things. The "information" necessary to build a home - how to operate tools and equipment, how to wire electrical lines and plumb pipes and fixtures, the mere fact that the walls have to be build before the roof - is inside the brains of the builders. The blueprint contains specifications for a given home by virtue of being homologous to the constructed house. The information on how to build homes is not located on any blueprint, but in the textbooks and educational materials made available to your builders at construction school.
BTW there is also a framing page, an external wall page, a HVAC page, a plumbing page, a electrical page, a roofing page.
The framing page doesn't teach people how to frame, it shows them what to frame. The plumbing page has no information on how to braise copper pipe. The roofing page has no instructions on how to nail down shingles or operate a nailgun. Blueprints don't contain instructions for building houses, they contain the specifications of a single home.
It's no wonder you think DNA is a blueprint - you don't even know what blueprints are. (Do you even know why they're called "blueprints"?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 11:38 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 1:38 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 187 (604168)
02-10-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
02-10-2011 12:06 PM


Re: Tree
I did say the DNA of a tree cell contains a set of instructions to build the structure in which that cell resides.
But as the clonal birches prove, it doesn't. It contains a set of instructions to build proteins.
The DNA is part of a living organism and is self replicating and only requires its beginning to exist to be able to reproduce its self as the designer specified.
DNA is not "self-replicating", the replication complex of DNA involves the action of at least a dozen different proteins and a substantial amount of ddNTP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 12:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by goldrush, posted 02-10-2011 12:14 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 138 by ICANT, posted 02-16-2011 1:24 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 83 of 187 (604169)
02-10-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
02-10-2011 12:06 PM


Re: Tree
I don't think I ever said DNA and a blueprint are the same thing.
Then why use the analogy?
I did say the DNA of a tree cell contains a set of instructions to build the structure in which that cell resides.
In the same way that hydrogen and oxygen contain the instructions for how to build water.
The DNA is part of a living organism and is self replicating and only requires its beginning to exist to be able to reproduce its self as the designer specified.
How did you determine that a designer specified anything in any genome?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 12:06 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 1:43 PM Taq has replied

  
goldrush
Member (Idle past 4774 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 02-08-2011


Message 84 of 187 (604170)
02-10-2011 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
02-10-2011 12:09 PM


Here is an additional post for (hopefully) clarification of my position.
If we can't show how a cell and DNA form from purely chemical processes (with lack of purpose, design or deliberation) we have no reason, (scientific or otherwise) to conclude that "how" a cell and DNA functions is the same as "why" it functions. It's like claiming a computer functions as a direct result of its parts, when in reality, a computer functions as a direct result of it being designed to work and perform certain tasks. If you break down and separate all the computer's components, it will cease to function and exist as a computer. It will lack purpose. The only way it will become a computer again is if mind and will act to begin the re-building process. The most convincing proof of abiogenesis would be observation in nature, not anything "formulated" in the laboratory, b/c then you could never technically remove the mind and deliberation aspect from the process. Any assumption that science will someday discover with certainty that such abiogenesis occurred is a matter of faith.
The fact that we as humans have the will and ability to reason (and to a degree know) which has enabled us to basically shape and re-shape society (through the creation of systems, and designs) should behoove us to appreciate that the systems and mechanisms we observe in nature are also a result of knowledge, will, mind, and design. The primary existence is irreducible to a Being or whole. The universe can ultimately be explained simply by an original "knowing" existence, a Being, an eternal source, a self-existing, uncreated Creator. Being perfect in knowledge, the Creator can set the establishment and order of all other things (reasoning to superlative). The question of origin and order is satisfied in the most basic form. The universe doesn't begin with pure scratch, raw materials, potential, and lack of knowledge. It begins with a Creator. This is as simple (and as unfathomable) as it gets. Not everyone will agree or come to this conclusion, and I fully accept that.
Edited by goldrush, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 12:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 12:39 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 88 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 12:40 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 90 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 1:14 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 91 by Jon, posted 02-10-2011 1:28 PM goldrush has not replied
 Message 105 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2011 8:36 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 85 of 187 (604172)
02-10-2011 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ICANT
02-10-2011 11:52 AM


Re: Tree
Hi, ICANT.
ICANT writes:
Are you telling me all those trees came from the same seed?
Yes, I am.
You can get an idea of the way aspen clones work by reading this Wiki article on an aspen clone nicknamed "Pando," which is thought by many to be the largest organism alive today.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 11:52 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 02-10-2011 12:22 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 92 by ICANT, posted 02-10-2011 1:28 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 86 of 187 (604174)
02-10-2011 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Blue Jay
02-10-2011 12:16 PM


Re: Tree
I bet he's going to claim that that seed contained the blueprint for all the trees to look the way they do. Or something similar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Blue Jay, posted 02-10-2011 12:16 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 87 of 187 (604177)
02-10-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by goldrush
02-10-2011 12:14 PM


If we can't show how a cell and DNA form from purely chemical processes (with lack of purpose, design or deliberation) we have no reason, (scientific or otherwise) to conclude that "how" a cell and DNA functions is the same as "why" it functions.
I think you misunderstand science is a process by which we identify or select general principles, and then reason to the specific. This may be how a certain type of person approaches morality, ethics, finance, business, and a lot of other fields; but it's not how the work of science is done.
In science we start with specific facts and test our way out from them to general explanatory models. So it's not necessary to have any idea how life began 3 billion years ago to determine facts and create models about how life operates now. We simply start with how life is operating now.
That's a lot easier to observe, after all, than the origins of life that occurred 3 billion years ago and are now basically inaccessible to us.
Of course, as it happens we have a very compelling model for the chemical origin of life and the cell called "RNA world".
If you break down and separate all the computer's components, it will cease to function and exist as a computer. It will lack purpose.
No, it has the same exact purpose it had before you took it apart. What it lacks is function, because the function does not emerge from its purpose, it emerges from its parts. You may believe that a computer operates by magic, or you may have no idea how a computer operates - it was a long time before I had any notion beyond "tiny switches" - but computers don't operate according to their design and intent, they operate according to their physical construction. That's how Intel was able to unintentionally create a microprocessor that couldn't do arithmetically-valid division - it didn't operate according to design and intent, it operated according to its flawed construction.
A computer you haven't built yet has the same purpose it has after you've finished assembling it, assuming you didn't change your mind between now and then. The difference in the before and after is due entirely to its lack of function as a pile of components, and that is because the function of a computer is determined by its parts, not by its purpose.
The most convincing proof of abiogenesis would be observation in nature, not anything "formulated" in the laboratory
We observe that abiogenesis happened on Earth because there's all this life here. Is that the observation in nature you're looking for?
Or are you looking for it to happen again? An impossibility on Earth, because the existence of life has made subsequent abiogenesis impossible; abiogenesis requires conditions that cannot exist on a garden planet except in a laboratory.
b/c then you could never technically remove the mind and deliberation aspect from the process.
Why? Surely one of the things minds can do is act like they're not minds at all. Who says that intelligence can't be used to simulate what would happen if intelligence was not present? If I set up an experiment, there's no rule that says I have to stick my very-mindful fingers into the middle of it. If I set it up and walk away, exactly in what sense is my mind contributing to the experiment?
The entire purpose of science is to take intelligence out of the picture, and explore what happens when natural laws act on a system all by themselves. If the conclusions of science were limited to situations where intelligent intervention was always happening - was unavoidable - they would be utterly useless for any technological purpose. Since they're not - since, for instance V = IR models electrical circuits without intelligence intervention - we know that what you're saying is wrong.
The fact that we as humans have the will and ability to reason (and to a degree know) which has enabled us to basically shape and re-shape society (through the creation of systems, and designs) should behoove us to appreciate that the systems and mechanisms we observe in nature are also a result of knowledge, will, mind, and design.
Just because our intelligence can shape things, doesn't mean that intelligence is always required to shape anything. One of the things we're able to do with our intelligence, after all, is study what happens when our intelligence isn't even involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by goldrush, posted 02-10-2011 12:14 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 88 of 187 (604178)
02-10-2011 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by goldrush
02-10-2011 12:14 PM


If we can't show how a cell and DNA form from purely chemical processes (with lack of purpose, design or deliberation) we have no reason, (scientific or otherwise) to conclude that "how" a cell and DNA functions is the same as "why" it functions.
Can you tell us which step in the formation of a cell is not a chemical process?
It's like claiming a computer functions as a direct result of its parts, when in reality, a computer functions as a direct result of it being designed to work and perform certain tasks. If you break down and separate all the computer's components, it will cease to function and exist as a computer. It will lack purpose.
The purpose of a computer is determined by how humans use it to perform tasks. So how does this creator use life towards a purpose, and what objective evidence do you have to back this up?
The most convincing proof of abiogenesis would be observation in nature, not anything "formulated" in the laboratory, b/c then you could never technically remove the mind and deliberation aspect from the process.
Does the same level of evidence apply to the creator as well? Are you proposing a creator because you have observed this creator making life?
The fact that we as humans have the will and ability to reason (and to a degree know) which has enabled us to basically shape and re-shape society (through the creation of systems, and designs) should behoove us to appreciate that the systems and mechanisms we observe in nature are also a result of knowledge, will, mind, and design.
Why? Humans are able to shape and design machines that produce ice, so does this mean that all ice is likewise produced by some designed freezer? Or could it be that nature is capable of doing what humans are capable of doing?
The universe can ultimately be explained simply by an original "knowing" existence, a Being, an eternal source, a self-existing, uncreated Creator.
How did you determine that this explanation is true?
The universe doesn't begin with pure scratch, raw materials, potential, and lack of knowledge. It begins with a Creator.
Based on what evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by goldrush, posted 02-10-2011 12:14 PM goldrush has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 89 of 187 (604181)
02-10-2011 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
02-10-2011 12:00 PM


Re: Tree
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
DNA has almost no homology to the actual organisms its inside; there's nothing that looks like a branch or a leaf inside the DNA of a tree.
Who said there was a picture of a branch or a leaf inside the DNA of a tree.
The DNA codes for the leaf to appear in specific places as it does for the branches, as well as the bark.
crashfrog writes:
Actual blueprints don't contain any instructions at all,
I will assume from that statement you have never looked at a blueprint. If you did you did not know what you were looking at.
Since I have drawn many blueprints that was approved by engineers of the county that issued the permit to build structures I humbly disagree with you that a blueprint don't contain any instructions.
If on the footer page I draw the layout of the footer specifying the footer will be 10' from the side property lines, 25' from the rear property line and 40' from the front property line to the outside of the footer and then specify that the footer will be 24" wide and 10" deep with 3 #6 rebar with chairs 3' apart with a 4' verticle #6 rebar laped 2' and tied to footer rebar (I could specify welded) above each chair at 3' intervals.
These instructions along with all other instructions for the construction of the house has been approved by the building department.
You then look at the elevation page of the blueprint and dig a footer 16" wide 5' from the east property and 15' from from the west property line. You decide you want a larger back yard of you place the front of the footer 10' from the front property line and the rear footer at 55' from the property line. You then proceed to put 2 #5 rebar on the chairs and you put 1 4' #5 rebar verticle at each corner laped 2' and tied to footer rebar.
You got everything ready for your inspection so you call for a footer inspection.
The inspector comes to do his inspection and the first question he asks is where are your blueprints. You are supposed to have them displayed on the jobsite. You get them for him and his next question is where is your fumigation papers. You say I don't have any. He says well before I do my inspection you must have the ground fumigated for termites. When that is done call and I will come back and inspect your footer.
You comply and get the ground treated and then call for your footer inspection.
The inspector returns and takes the prints he sees the specifications for your footer on the prints and looks at the footer you have dug and the steel you have placed in it. Since he has done thousands of these inspections he says. Your footer is in the wrong place and is not the right size and does not have the right rebar in it.
Make the corrections and call for a reinspection.
But before you call make sure you follow the instructions on the foundation page.
You explain to the inspector but sir Actual blueprints don't contain any instructions at all, they contain homology between the finished construction of the item and the diagrams on the blueprint paper.
He then says call for a foundation inspection after you have hired a contractor to do the work as he will know there is specific instructions on the blueprint that must be followed if you are going to build that house on this lot.
I didn't know any shorter way to stress the point.
If the instructions in the blueprint are not followed you will not get the house designed in the blueprint.
If the DNA instructions are not followed you will not get the tree that is designed in the DNA.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 12:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2011 1:29 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 99 by Taq, posted 02-10-2011 1:57 PM ICANT has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 90 of 187 (604184)
02-10-2011 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by goldrush
02-10-2011 12:14 PM


Hi, Goldrush.
goldrush writes:
If we can't show how a cell and DNA form from purely chemical processes (with lack of purpose, design or deliberation) we have no reason, (scientific or otherwise) to conclude that "how" a cell and DNA functions is the same as "why" it functions.
Any question can be answered on a number of scales. For instance, let's analyze the question, "Why do we eat?"
  • On the scale of cells, we could say, "We eat because eating provides energy that can power the cell's processes and provide raw substance for chemical reactions."
  • On the scale of individual people, we could say, "We eat because we're hungry."
  • On the scale of species, we could say, "We eat because, if we didn't eat, our species would have been extinct by now."
  • On the scale of the ecosystem, we could say, "We eat because we are animals, and animals are physiologically designed/adapted to derive sustenance from consuming other organisms."
  • In a universe that was designed by God, we could even go so far as to say, on the scale of all Creation, "We eat because God's eternal plans called for intelligent creatures that have to eat to sustain themselves."
These are five different answers to the question, "Why do we eat?"
Which of these is the correct answer to the question?
Are they not all correct?
Just because an answer to a "why" question does not provide a "motive" or "purpose" that would fit into a "Great Plan for all the Cosmos," doesn't mean that it is not a correct answer to the "why" question.
There is no reason to insist that the only suitable answer to a "why" question is a grand, cosmic-scale answer that makes the universe seem to have purpose.
Added by edit: There is also no reason to assume that one correct answer to a "why" question precludes another answer to the same question (i.e., we can eat both because our stomach is growling and because our cells need the sustenance).
-----
goldrush writes:
It's like claiming a computer functions as a direct result of its parts, when in reality, a computer functions as a direct result of it being designed to work and perform certain tasks.
You're not using the word "direct" correctly.
A computer functions because all the parts are in the correct layout.
The parts are in the correct layout because somebody put them in that layout.
The person making the computer only has direct control over the layout of the parts. It is the layout of the parts that directly determines whether or not the computer functions.
So, the computer functioning is actually the indirect result of it being designed and assembled by a person.
Edited by Bluejay, : Marked addition.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by goldrush, posted 02-10-2011 12:14 PM goldrush has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024