Hope for your project - a little off topic.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

Is your C++ project on the ropes? I'm willing to donate
15 hours a week for up to six months on a project that
uses the C++ Middleware Writer (CMW). The CMW is an on
line code generator that writes low-level C++ marshalling
code based on high-level user input. The CMW is an
increasingly robust producer of concrete code. I'm
borrowing the term "concrete code" from www.springfuse.com.
They claim that "Developers learn faster and better with
concrete code."

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - So far G-d has helped us.
http://webEbenezer.net

[woodb...@gmail.com]

Also I'll pay someone $100 cash and give them a $200
investment in my company if they help me find someone
to work with. The company rewards investments to 3
times their original amount. So you would receive
anywhere from $0 to $600 on the investment part,
depending on how things go for the company. I'll pay
the $100 cash after working with whomever it is for 4
months.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

I'm happy to announce an increase here.

I'll pay $300 cash and give a $300 investment in my
company.

[Mr Flibble]

"Well that's a shit load of fucking bastard cunts" -- Paul Calf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-kfeyEzAT8

[woodb...@gmail.com]

Please don't swear here, Mr. Flibble.

[Mr Flibble]

On 15/12/2013 22:50, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Please don't swear here, Mr. Flibble.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, December 15, 2013 12:14:48 PM UTC-6, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, October 4, 2013 5:08:44 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Also I'll pay someone $100 cash and give them a $200
> > investment in my company if they help me find someone
> > to work with. The company rewards investments to 3
> > times their original amount. So you would receive
> > anywhere from $0 to $600 on the investment part,
> > depending on how things go for the company. I'll pay
> > the $100 cash after working with whomever it is for 4
> > months.
>

Another increase:
$500 cash and a $1,000 investment in my company.

[Mr Flibble]

[Öö Tiib]

Might be more fruitful to try finding business partners from
game developer communities. There may be someone interested
in unorthodox communication/serialization modules/servers.
Rest of the projects are mostly using relatively standardized
solutions these days.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:34:04 PM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote

>
> Might be more fruitful to try finding business partners from
> game developer communities. There may be someone interested
> in unorthodox communication/serialization modules/servers.
> Rest of the projects are mostly using relatively standardized
> solutions these days.

I think some of those "standardized solutions" aren't
being well maintained.

Do you know of a bank that doesn't offer on line banking?
I'm thinking of the sapling on the cover of "The Design
and Evolution of C++". I'm doing what I can to prepare
for the future. Consider also springfuse.com. They also
are investing in on line code generation.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 05:46:43 UTC+2, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:34:04 PM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote
> >
> > Might be more fruitful to try finding business partners from
> > game developer communities. There may be someone interested
> > in unorthodox communication/serialization modules/servers.
> > Rest of the projects are mostly using relatively standardized
> > solutions these days.
>
> I think some of those "standardized solutions" aren't
> being well maintained.

May well be. Your idea is to take over that maintenance
of some standardised solutions?

> Do you know of a bank that doesn't offer on line banking?

No. All banks I know offer such services over https in web
browser. None of banks offers code generation services
and your CMW does not sound like web application
framework so what part of it is relevant to banks?

> I'm thinking of the sapling on the cover of "The Design
> and Evolution of C++". I'm doing what I can to prepare
> for the future. Consider also springfuse.com. They also
> are investing in on line code generation.

Yes, good idea to generate code with code generator (instead
of for example C++ template metaprogramming or C
preprocessor metaprogramming) and good idea to do it
online.

However ... the main question feels to be not *how* to
generate CMW code but *why* to generate CMW code?

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:27:59 AM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 05:46:43 UTC+2, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > I think some of those "standardized solutions" aren't
> > being well maintained.
>
> May well be. Your idea is to take over that maintenance
> of some standardised solutions?

No.

>
> > Do you know of a bank that doesn't offer on line banking?
>
> No. All banks I know offer such services over https in web
> browser. None of banks offers code generation services
> and your CMW does not sound like web application
> framework so what part of it is relevant to banks?
>
> > I'm thinking of the sapling on the cover of "The Design
> > and Evolution of C++". I'm doing what I can to prepare
> > for the future. Consider also springfuse.com. They also
> > are investing in on line code generation.
>
> Yes, good idea to generate code with code generator (instead
> of for example C++ template metaprogramming or C
> preprocessor metaprogramming) and good idea to do it
> online.
>
> However ... the main question feels to be not *how* to
> generate CMW code but *why* to generate CMW code?

I'm not opposed to supporting a text/json format, but
have to stick to what I have for now. Games and scientific
applications are areas where binary protocols are used.

One thing CMW does is automate the creation of marshalling
functions.

With the on line aspect, it's easier to get fixes out.
The amount of code that has to be downloaded and built
with the on line approach is much less than with older
approach.

As you mention existing apps have made their decisions.
They would be hard to convert at this point (but maybe
not in the future.) In the meantime there are new apps
being written. If someone has a good idea they may
start to pursue it and decide they need some help to
make progress with it.

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:22:44 UTC+2, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:27:59 AM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > Yes, good idea to generate code with code generator (instead
> > of for example C++ template metaprogramming or C
> > preprocessor metaprogramming) and good idea to do it
> > online.
> >
> > However ... the main question feels to be not *how* to
> > generate CMW code but *why* to generate CMW code?
>
> I'm not opposed to supporting a text/json format, but
> have to stick to what I have for now. Games and scientific
> applications are areas where binary protocols are used.

There are lot of other areas that use binary formats ... but
these formats are commonly standardised as well. So the
question is why to choose that custom binary format.

> One thing CMW does is automate the creation of marshalling
> functions.

I already classified it as "good idea" about *how*.

> With the on line aspect, it's easier to get fixes out.
> The amount of code that has to be downloaded and built
> with the on line approach is much less than with older
> approach.

I already classified it as "good idea" about *how*.

> As you mention existing apps have made their decisions.
> They would be hard to convert at this point (but maybe
> not in the future.)

I see no answer to *why* they decide to migrate to CMW.

> In the meantime there are new apps
> being written. If someone has a good idea they may
> start to pursue it and decide they need some help to
> make progress with it.

That is the question. Why CMW? Existing standardised
protocols have more tools (besides code generators/
libraries) that support them.

For example there is Wireshark. It sort of "understands"
such protocols: http://wiki.wireshark.org/ProtocolReference
If in some phase of production it is needed to monitor
traffic of packets, then it is cheaper to pick protocol
that Wireshark can monitor. Isn't it?

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 20, 2013 10:33:30 AM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:22:44 UTC+2, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I see no answer to *why* they decide to migrate to CMW.

I mentioned new projects that wouldn't be migrating
from anything.

>
> > In the meantime there are new apps
> > being written. If someone has a good idea they may
> > start to pursue it and decide they need some help to
> > make progress with it.
>
> That is the question. Why CMW? Existing standardised
> protocols have more tools (besides code generators/
> libraries) that support them.
>

People need tools to outlast their projects. Ebenezer
Enterprises has a business model to make it strong.
Southwest Airlines has a saying that their fares are
only available on their website. I think they get
hotel and car rental companies to pay them to be
listed on their website. In the same way, CMW code
is only available on my website. If you want longevity,
good maintenance, and free services, that sort of
model is important.

Remember the title of this thread. I'm reaching out
to someone who needs help with their project. If
someone refers themselves for this, they'll get $500
cash, $1,000 investment in the company, and 15 hrs/week
for six months of help on their project. For a small
company that's a lot of help.

> For example there is Wireshark. It sort of "understands"
> such protocols: http://wiki.wireshark.org/ProtocolReference
> If in some phase of production it is needed to monitor
> traffic of packets, then it is cheaper to pick protocol
> that Wireshark can monitor. Isn't it?

I didn't see anything about the serialization library in Boost,
S11n, or Protocol Buffers there. I'm not advocating a secret
protocol or anything like that.


Brian

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 20, 2013 10:33:30 AM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> That is the question. Why CMW? Existing standardised
> protocols have more tools (besides code generators/
> libraries) that support them.
>

People need tools to outlast their projects. Ebenezer
Enterprises has a business model to make it strong.

There's an airline called Southwest Airlines. They
have a saying that their fares are only available on

their website. I think they get hotel and car rental
companies to pay them to be listed on their website.
In the same way, CMW code is only available on my
website. If you want longevity, good maintenance,

and free services, this sort of model is important.

And remember the title of this thread. I'm reaching

out to someone who needs help with their project.
If someone refers themselves for this, they'll get
$500 cash, $1,000 investment in the company, and 15

hours/week for six months of help on their project.
That's a lot for a small company.

>
> For example there is Wireshark. It sort of "understands"
> such protocols: http://wiki.wireshark.org/ProtocolReference
> If in some phase of production it is needed to monitor
> traffic of packets, then it is cheaper to pick protocol
> that Wireshark can monitor. Isn't it?

I didn't see anything about the serialization library in
Boost, S11n, or Protocol Buffers there. I'm not advocating

hidden/closed protocol.

[Mr Flibble]

On 20/12/2013 23:36, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> People need tools to outlast their projects. Ebenezer
> Enterprises has a business model to make it strong.

I don't care what business model a company has if it has a bigoted
ethical model. I also suspect "Ebenezer Enterprises" is a shed or
bedroom based hobby project.

> listed on their website. In the same way, CMW code
> is only available on my website. If you want longevity,
> good maintenance, and free services, that sort of
> model is important.

Longevity? What happens if you get run over by a bus tomorrow?

>
> Remember the title of this thread. I'm reaching out
> to someone who needs help with their project. If
> someone refers themselves for this, they'll get $500
> cash, $1,000 investment in the company, and 15 hrs/week
> for six months of help on their project. For a small
> company that's a lot of help.

La la la la la.

/Flibble

[Alf P. Steinbach]

I don't think this plea is a good way to get contracts. It sounds
desperate. And that in turn yields an impression of a failing business,
which in turn implies something (software? service? contracts?) ungood
somewhere.

Without claiming a high success rate for dating women (I've only done
that once, and she was a good friend of mine) from what I've been able
to glean from others' tales, a sure-fire way to NOT succeed is to appear
desperate. Appearance is, apparently, very very important to avoid being
summarily dismissed in microseconds. And after appearance, for the
tentative evaluation, reality must not diverge too much.

So, to repeat: the /appearance/ the plea gives, is desperation, which is
a turn-off signal.

As I understand it you're developing and offering infra-structure -- a
middle-ware serialization solution.

First, in any attempt to solicit interest or contracts, do mention your
website, <url: http://webebenezer.net/>. And make it a bit more
good-looking and functional. Not just the bare facts.

If you don't mention the site, then people might confuse your company
with Ebenezer Enterprise in Mumbai, who evidently do catering services
and such around the world (they come on top in a google search).

Do also mention your product.

And describe it more fully on the web site.

I would suggest that you emphasize what's different from Boost
serialization.

You might also consider changing the name of the company to something
more unique and descriptive, e.g. Ebenezer Serialization. Like, why not
be up-front about what the company has to offer. That's after all what
customers are interested in.

That said, I would have liked to offer advice and knowledge about venues
and ways to get contracts, but I have no such to offer. Maybe it's
possible to advertize? Maybe -- via Google?


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf (off-topic mode)

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 21 December 2013 01:36:44 UTC+2, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 20, 2013 10:33:30 AM UTC-6, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 18 December 2013 17:22:44 UTC+2, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > In the meantime there are new apps
> > > being written. If someone has a good idea they may
> > > start to pursue it and decide they need some help to
> > > make progress with it.
> >
> > That is the question. Why CMW? Existing standardised
> > protocols have more tools (besides code generators/
> > libraries) that support them.
>
> People need tools to outlast their projects. Ebenezer
> Enterprises has a business model to make it strong.
> Southwest Airlines has a saying that their fares are
> only available on their website. I think they get
> hotel and car rental companies to pay them to be
> listed on their website. In the same way, CMW code
> is only available on my website. If you want longevity,
> good maintenance, and free services, that sort of
> model is important.

Sure, but you slogan is not that "get all your software
from Ebenezer Enterprizes" so how you compare it with "all
tickets from Southwest Airlines"? If it is popular
communication protocol or file format then there are lot
of tools, libraries and services (from various sources)
that support it. I'm not sure what effect a single source
of support and fewer tools is supposed to give. I feel
some logical fallacy here.

> Remember the title of this thread. I'm reaching out
> to someone who needs help with their project. If
> someone refers themselves for this, they'll get $500
> cash, $1,000 investment in the company, and 15 hrs/week
> for six months of help on their project. For a small
> company that's a lot of help.

These are "extras". Extras are packing paper around goods.
I here try to discuss qualities and future roadmap of the
goods offered. Out of proportions golden packing paper is
irrelevant since it does not improve the goods.

> > For example there is Wireshark. It sort of "understands"
> > such protocols: http://wiki.wireshark.org/ProtocolReference
> > If in some phase of production it is needed to monitor
> > traffic of packets, then it is cheaper to pick protocol
> > that Wireshark can monitor. Isn't it?
>
> I didn't see anything about the serialization library in Boost,
> S11n, or Protocol Buffers there. I'm not advocating a secret
> protocol or anything like that.

What one has to do to get Wireshark to work with a data format it
does not support is to make dissector plugin for it. How easy it
is with CMW? Is it simpler than with Boost Serialize or Protocol
Buffers that have free open source code generators? libs11n is
entirely data format agnostic so it perhaps does not even apply
here.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:30:35 AM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 20/12/2013 23:36, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I also suspect "Ebenezer Enterprises" is a shed or
> bedroom based hobby project.
>

Dell started in his dorm room and many others in a
garage so, yeah.

> > listed on their website. In the same way, CMW code
> > is only available on my website. If you want longevity,
> > good maintenance, and free services, that sort of
> > model is important.
>
> Longevity? What happens if you get run over by a bus tomorrow?

Are you familiar Elijah and Elisha?

And it came about when the L-rd was about to take up
Elijah by a whirlwind to heaven, that Elijah went with
Elisha from Gilgal. Elijah said to Elisha, “Stay here
please, for the L-rd has sent me as far as Bethel.”
But Elisha said, “As the L-rd lives and as you yourself
live, I will not leave you.” So they went down to Bethel.
Then the sons of the prophets who were at Bethel came
out to Elisha and said to him, “Do you know that the
L-rd will take away your master from over you today?”
And he said, “Yes, I know; be still.”

Elijah said to him, “Elisha, please stay here, for the
L-rd has sent me to Jericho.” But he said, “As the L-rd
lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.”
So they came to Jericho. The sons of the prophets who
were at Jericho approached Elisha and said to him, “Do
you know that the L-rd will take away your master from
over you today?” And he answered, “Yes, I know; be still.”
Then Elijah said to him, “Please stay here, for the L-rd
has sent me to the Jordan.” And he said, “As the L-rd
lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.”
So the two of them went on.

Now fifty men of the sons of the prophets went and stood
opposite them at a distance, while the two of them stood
by the Jordan. Elijah took his mantle and folded it together
and struck the waters, and they were divided here and there,
so that the two of them crossed over on dry ground.

When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, “Ask what
I shall do for you before I am taken from you.” And Elisha
said, “Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon
me.” He said, “You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless,
if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for
you; but if not, it shall not be so.” As they were going
along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire
and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And
Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. Elisha saw it and
cried out, “My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and
its horsemen!” And he saw Elijah no more. Then he took hold
of his own clothes and tore them in two pieces. He also
took up the mantle of Elijah that fell from him and returned
and stood by the bank of the Jordan. He took the mantle of
Elijah that fell from him and struck the waters and said,
“Where is the L-rd, the G-d of Elijah?” And when he also had
struck the waters, they were divided here and there; and
Elisha crossed over.

---------------------------------------------------------

Elijah trained Elisha for about ten years to take his place.
If need be G-d will have me do something similar.



Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[Daniel]

On Saturday, December 21, 2013 7:10:17 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:30:35 AM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> > Longevity? What happens if you get run over by a bus tomorrow?
>
> Are you familiar Elijah and Elisha?

If I could offer a cautionary note to Mr Flibble, the text continues:

And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him: 'Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.'

And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of them.

Be well,
Daniel

[Mr Flibble]

One nutter joining in with another nutter. There is no God, fruitloops,
and the Old Testament or "Tanakh" is clearly a work of fiction.

/Flibble

[Daniel]

On Sunday, December 22, 2013 10:58:28 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> One nutter joining in with another nutter. There is no God, fruitloops ...

Sigh, it seems my little joke was sown on rocky places, where it grew not ...

Daniel

[Mr Flibble]

I didn't read it to the end as as soon as I see anything resembling
scripture I switch off.

/Flibble

[J. Clarke]

In article <et6dncoi9J0fkirP...@giganews.com>,
flibbleRE...@i42.co.uk says...

In any case, any business plan that depends on divine intervention is a
Bad Plan.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 21, 2013 7:07:05 AM UTC-6, Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
> On 05.10.2013 00:08, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Also I'll pay someone $100 cash and give them a $200
>
> > investment in my company if they help me find someone
>
> > to work with. The company rewards investments to 3
>
> > times their original amount. So you would receive
>
> > anywhere from $0 to $600 on the investment part,
>
> > depending on how things go for the company. I'll pay
>
> > the $100 cash after working with whomever it is for 4
>
> > months.
>
> >
>
> I don't think this plea is a good way to get contracts. It sounds
> desperate. And that in turn yields an impression of a failing business,
> which in turn implies something (software? service? contracts?) ungood
> somewhere.
>
> Without claiming a high success rate for dating women (I've only done
> that once, and she was a good friend of mine) from what I've been able
> to glean from others' tales, a sure-fire way to NOT succeed is to appear
> desperate. Appearance is, apparently, very very important to avoid being
> summarily dismissed in microseconds. And after appearance, for the
> tentative evaluation, reality must not diverge too much.
>
> So, to repeat: the /appearance/ the plea gives, is desperation, which is
> a turn-off signal.
>

I believe the quality of the service and software is high
and by finding more users I'll be able to make the quality
even higher. Obamacare has spent over 1 billion on website
and the site was down this past Friday for 3 hours. It's
possible to build much better site than Obamacare for much
less money.

Paying for references is not something I invented. From
what I understand recruiters pay much more than my offer.

> As I understand it you're developing and offering infra-structure -- a
> middle-ware serialization solution.
>
> First, in any attempt to solicit interest or contracts, do mention your
> website, <url: http://webebenezer.net/>. And make it a bit more
> good-looking and functional. Not just the bare facts.

Agreed, but don't promise any dates on that.

>
> If you don't mention the site, then people might confuse your company
> with Ebenezer Enterprise in Mumbai, who evidently do catering services
> and such around the world (they come on top in a google search).
>
> Do also mention your product.
>
> And describe it more fully on the web site.
>

I agree with this, but have other priorities that
mean I don't get to this yet.

> I would suggest that you emphasize what's different from Boost
> serialization.
>
> You might also consider changing the name of the company to something
> more unique and descriptive, e.g. Ebenezer Serialization. Like, why not
> be up-front about what the company has to offer. That's after all what
> customers are interested in.
>
> That said, I would have liked to offer advice and knowledge about venues
> and ways to get contracts, but I have no such to offer. Maybe it's
> possible to advertize? Maybe -- via Google?
>

I like https://duckduckgo.com for searching.
They don't track you like Google and some of the others do.
I did advertise a few years ago with some free advertising
that Google was giving away. Were they desperate? I
guess, but it doesn't really matter to me.
Perhaps others took advantage of Google's advertising
giveaway and can bear witness to the veracity of my claim.

[Daniel]

On Sunday, December 22, 2013 11:12:50 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> I didn't read it to the end as as soon as I see anything resembling
> scripture I switch off.
>

It is not so different, reading the texts and reading the standard, the authors
of both knew what they were doing. You can think of the 4th century First Council of Nicaea as an early standardization effort.

Daniel

[David Brown]

I recommend you re-read Daniel's post - I thought the joke was quite clever.

[Qu0ll]

"Mr Flibble" wrote in message
news:et6dncoi9J0fkirP...@giganews.com...

> I didn't read it to the end as as soon as I see anything resembling
> scripture I switch off.

Yeah, I bet you do. That's probably why you seem so ignorant and
uninformed.

--
And loving it,

-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
Qu0llS...@gmail.com
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]

[Mr Flibble]

On 23/12/2013 00:15, Qu0ll wrote:
> "Mr Flibble" wrote in message
> news:et6dncoi9J0fkirP...@giganews.com...
>
>> I didn't read it to the end as as soon as I see anything resembling
>> scripture I switch off.
>
> Yeah, I bet you do. That's probably why you seem so ignorant and
> uninformed.

On the contrary, the contents of the Bible is a complete waste of time;
there are many much better books. The guy who believes in the existence
of supernatural gods is the ignorant one. The guy who believes that the
Bible is true is the ignorant one.

/Flibble

[Qu0ll]

"Mr Flibble" wrote in message

news:hOWdnWP3a5o5HirP...@giganews.com...

> On the contrary, the contents of the Bible is a complete waste of time;
> there are many much better books. The guy who believes in the existence
> of supernatural gods is the ignorant one. The guy who believes that the
> Bible is true is the ignorant one.

How would you know? By your own admission you have never read any of it!

To me it would seem pretty darn ignorant to dismiss such a large tome
without actually reading more than a few words...

[Mr Flibble]

On 23/12/2013 00:38, Qu0ll wrote:
> "Mr Flibble" wrote in message
> news:hOWdnWP3a5o5HirP...@giganews.com...
>
>> On the contrary, the contents of the Bible is a complete waste of
>> time; there are many much better books. The guy who believes in the
>> existence of supernatural gods is the ignorant one. The guy who
>> believes that the Bible is true is the ignorant one.
>
> How would you know? By your own admission you have never read any of it!
>
> To me it would seem pretty darn ignorant to dismiss such a large tome
> without actually reading more than a few words...

You are assuming that I have only read a few words. If have seen enough
quotes from the Bible to know it is a piece of shit without having to
read the whole damn book. I have seen enough bigoted bullshit from that
book that I know I don't have to read any more of it.

/Flibble

[Qu0ll]

"Mr Flibble" wrote in message

news:apOdnWxwbfSXGirP...@giganews.com...

> You are assuming that I have only read a few words. If have seen enough
> quotes from the Bible to know it is a piece of shit without having to read
> the whole damn book. I have seen enough bigoted bullshit from that book
> that I know I don't have to read any more of it.

OK, whatever. But just so are aware, this comment is in conflict with your
previous proud boast "as soon as I see anything resembling scripture I
switch off" which kind of reduces your already shaky credibility...

[Mr Flibble]

On 23/12/2013 00:49, Qu0ll wrote:
> "Mr Flibble" wrote in message
> news:apOdnWxwbfSXGirP...@giganews.com...
>
>> You are assuming that I have only read a few words. If have seen
>> enough quotes from the Bible to know it is a piece of shit without
>> having to read the whole damn book. I have seen enough bigoted
>> bullshit from that book that I know I don't have to read any more of it.
>
> OK, whatever. But just so are aware, this comment is in conflict with
> your previous proud boast "as soon as I see anything resembling
> scripture I switch off" which kind of reduces your already shaky
> credibility...

No it isn't and no it doesn't.

/Flibble

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, December 22, 2013 8:49:29 AM UTC-6, Daniel wrote:
>
> If I could offer a cautionary note to Mr Flibble, the text continues:
>
> And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him: 'Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead.'
>

I'm not sure of the age of those who were mauled by the
bears, but think they may have been immature people.
Elisha may have also been reckless with his new power.
After witnessing something amazing, he got carried away
so to speak.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111915/jewish/Elijah-And-Elisha.htm

[Geoff]

Ah, so it appears you are not Christian. Your god is not the loving,
forgiving god of the New Testament but the vengeful, powerful and
destructive god of the Old.

Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
"children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
is vain, the children perish, the prophet receives forgiveness.
Hypocrisy at it's finest. This supposedly teaches the prophet a lesson
about his "power" and he transgresses no more. If his enlightenment
truly came from God he would never have transgressed at all.

This is typical of the O.T. stories, God acts destructively in
response to "sin" and people die. God forgives only after the fact.
This is what makes the O.T. so illogical and fallacious.

Above all, the Golden Rule applies. Always treat others as you want to
be treated. Transgress this and live in hell.

[J. Clarke]

In article <pkvjb99ahdnv9u3o9...@4ax.com>,
ge...@invalid.invalid says...

So a masochist should always inflict pain on others? I think a better
rule is to always treat others as _they_ want to be treated.

[Daniel]

On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:27:29 PM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> So a masochist should always inflict pain on others? I think a better
> rule is to always treat others as _they_ want to be treated.

Finally back on topic for comp.lang.++! so People Who Answer Questions must
always treat People Who Ask Questions the way they want to be treated, no more
pestering them to post code, or scolding them for void main(){} and the like.

Daniel

[J. Clarke]

In article <300f9bd5-ddac-488a...@googlegroups.com>,
daniel...@gmail.com says...

Why not? Pestering them to post code doesn't do any good as near as I
can tell--the ones who understand why they need to do that do it without
being asked, and the ones who don't seem to never grasp the concept.

In any case, I think that those who post code fragments without any
output or messages are ignoring the Golden Rule anyway, as they seem be
expecting others to work miracles for them while they offer no miracles
themselves.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 3:55:44 PM UTC-6, Geoff wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:35:25 -0800 (PST), woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm not sure of the age of those who were mauled by the
> >bears, but think they may have been immature people.
> >Elisha may have also been reckless with his new power.
> >After witnessing something amazing, he got carried away
> >so to speak.
> >
>
> >http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111915/jewish/Elijah-And-Elisha.htm
>
> Ah, so it appears you are not Christian. Your god is not the loving,
> forgiving god of the New Testament but the vengeful, powerful and
> destructive god of the Old.
>

> Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
> "children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
> is vain,

He was angry at their foolishness. Perhaps they concluded that
because Elisha hadn't been taken up with Elijah he was inferior
to Elijah. They mocked him with "Go up". If they were
challenging his authority, the bears may have helped them
and others to know Elisha had the same authority as Elijah.
Elisha's work among them would go on for years after this
incident.

> the children perish, the prophet receives forgiveness.

I'm not sure anyone died. A couple of translations use the
word 'tore' another uses the word 'mauled'. I think 42
were hurt, but not sure beyond that.

[Geoff]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 19:16:30 -0800 (PST), woodb...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 3:55:44 PM UTC-6, Geoff wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:35:25 -0800 (PST), woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I'm not sure of the age of those who were mauled by the
>> >bears, but think they may have been immature people.
>> >Elisha may have also been reckless with his new power.
>> >After witnessing something amazing, he got carried away
>> >so to speak.
>> >
>>
>> >http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111915/jewish/Elijah-And-Elisha.htm
>>
>> Ah, so it appears you are not Christian. Your god is not the loving,
>> forgiving god of the New Testament but the vengeful, powerful and
>> destructive god of the Old.
>>
>
>> Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
>> "children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
>> is vain,
>
>He was angry at their foolishness.

So foolishness is a capital offense.

>Perhaps they concluded that
>because Elisha hadn't been taken up with Elijah he was inferior
>to Elijah.

He was, in fact, inferior to Elijah since he was his disciple until
that time.

>They mocked him with "Go up".

"Go up baldy" being the euphemism for "Die, baldy, die."

>If they were
>challenging his authority, the bears may have helped them
>and others to know Elisha had the same authority as Elijah.
>Elisha's work among them would go on for years after this
>incident.
>
>> the children perish, the prophet receives forgiveness.
>
>I'm not sure anyone died. A couple of translations use the
>word 'tore' another uses the word 'mauled'. I think 42
>were hurt, but not sure beyond that.
>

And here we have the true answer to life's ultimate question.

[Daniel]

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 10:16:30 PM UTC-5, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:

> word 'tore' another uses the word 'mauled'. I think 42 were hurt, but not
> sure beyond that.

Curiously the number 42 is also the "Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", a fact that I am sure will not be lost on our excellent Mr Flibble.

Daniel

[Mr Flibble]

On 27/12/2013 03:16, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 3:55:44 PM UTC-6, Geoff wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:35:25 -0800 (PST), woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure of the age of those who were mauled by the
>>> bears, but think they may have been immature people.
>>> Elisha may have also been reckless with his new power.
>>> After witnessing something amazing, he got carried away
>>> so to speak.
>>>
>>
>>> http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111915/jewish/Elijah-And-Elisha.htm
>>
>> Ah, so it appears you are not Christian. Your god is not the loving,
>> forgiving god of the New Testament but the vengeful, powerful and
>> destructive god of the Old.
>>
>
>> Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
>> "children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
>> is vain,
>
> He was angry at their foolishness. Perhaps they concluded that
> because Elisha hadn't been taken up with Elijah he was inferior
> to Elijah. They mocked him with "Go up". If they were
> challenging his authority, the bears may have helped them
> and others to know Elisha had the same authority as Elijah.
> Elisha's work among them would go on for years after this
> incident.

Incident? Are you serious? Adam and everyone related to Adam including
Abraham) NEVER EXISTED because there was no first human because humans
evolved. Do you deny the evidence for evolution? Your bible is a
fiction, your religion is a lie and your god does not exist.

/Flibble

[Ian Collins]

woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 3:55:44 PM UTC-6, Geoff wrote:
>
>> Here we have a prophet who uses his "power" to curse a group of
>> "children" who harmlessly teased him about his appearance. The prophet
>> is vain,
>
> He was angry at their foolishness. Perhaps they concluded that
> because Elisha hadn't been taken up with Elijah he was inferior
> to Elijah. They mocked him with "Go up".

Like programmers mocking the style prophets with goto?

--
Ian Collins

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 27 December 2013 05:16:30 UTC+2, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm not sure anyone died. A couple of translations use the
> word 'tore' another uses the word 'mauled'. I think 42
> were hurt, but not sure beyond that.

Did you really want to discuss these old fairy tales or what? Yes,
no one died. The good hunter came and cut the stomach of those
bears and let the little red ridding-hoods out again. Or something
like that.

[Geoff]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:32:00 -0800 (PST), �� Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

:)

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 27, 2013 12:25:41 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> Incident? Are you serious? Adam and everyone related to Adam including
> Abraham) NEVER EXISTED because there was no first human because humans
> evolved. Do you deny the evidence for evolution? Your bible is a
> fiction, your religion is a lie and your god does not exist.
>

If I'm all wrong, what about what I've been working on?
Do you think on line code generation is the wrong path?

This though might be like asking Noah's contemporaries
for their thoughts on the ark. They may have thought
it was a waste of time or something like that.

[Mr Flibble]

Did you not read what I said? Noah is related to Adam. Adam never
existed ergo Noah never existed ergo Noah did not have any
contemporaries. People that never existed never thought anything.

Again: your bible is a fiction, your religion is a lie and your god does
not exist

/Flibble

[Daniel]

On Friday, December 27, 2013 3:32:00 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:

> no one died. The good hunter came and cut the stomach of those
> bears and let the little red ridding-hoods out again. Or something
> like that.

Except in this story it was the good hero who sent for the she bears ...

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 27, 2013 5:57:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote:
>
> Did you not read what I said? Noah is related to Adam. Adam never
> existed ergo Noah never existed ergo Noah did not have any
> contemporaries. People that never existed never thought anything.
>

You ignored the first/primary part of my reply.

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Sun, 2013-12-22, Daniel wrote:
> On Sunday, December 22, 2013 10:58:28 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>
>> One nutter joining in with another nutter. There is no God, fruitloops ...
>
> Sigh, it seems my little joke was sown on rocky places, where it grew not ...

In other words: please don't feed the trolls. From where I'm looking,
half of comp.lang.c++ is wasted on the Leigh-vs-woodbrian offtopicness
and that is not how it should be.

(And I wish I had something useful to contribute with, but I'm in my
comfort zone with regards to C++ right now -- I know how to do
whatever I want to do, and to do more I'd have to read up on C++11.)

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[Qu0ll]

"Mr Flibble" wrote in message

news:7dudnRL_JJawWyDP...@giganews.com...

> Incident? Are you serious? Adam and everyone related to Adam including
> Abraham) NEVER EXISTED because there was no first human because humans
> evolved. Do you deny the evidence for evolution? Your bible is a fiction,
> your religion is a lie and your god does not exist.

Are you serious - "there was no first human because humans evolved"? Even
if your "theory" is correct, there still *must* have been the *first* human
when the mutations produced the very first embryo which matched the full DNA
profile of what we now term Homo sapiens in scientific nomenclature.

This is a scientific fact and is true whether you believe in any of the
Bible or not. Do you really care to dispute this? Because if you do then
you are totally full of it (if that isn't obvious already to some).

So how about we name this first human Adam? Then we are all happy :-)

[Paavo Helde]

"Qu0ll" <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:QrCdnTB7VPpkISLP...@westnet.com.au:

> Are you serious - "there was no first human because humans evolved"?
> Even if your "theory" is correct, there still *must* have been the
> *first* human when the mutations produced the very first embryo which
> matched the full DNA profile of what we now term Homo sapiens in
> scientific nomenclature.

> This is a scientific fact and is true whether you believe in any of
> the Bible or not.

Do you realize that no two people share the same exact DNA (except
identical twins), so there is no exactly defined "DNA profile of Homo
Sapiens". The DNA of all people are just similar to some degree, that's
it.

Do you realize that DNA of a species is subject to constant mutations and
the DNA of people 3M years ago was quite different from humans today, so
the "DNA profile of Homo Sapiens" has inevitably changed over time.

Do you realize that there is no exact definition of any single species?
Species are defined only by distinction from other species, and this
definition depends on our knowledge about other species, which is vague
even about currently living ones, not to speak about historic ones. We
cannot know when Homo Sapiens branched off from the last other species
because this species is probably long dead and forgotten. If we talk
about currently living species then we are talking about humans and
chimps. If/when chimps die off, the branching point defined this way will
jump back many millions of years.

Do you realize that any tiny mutation in the DNA might be the starting
point of splitting a species into two, but this happens only very rarely?
You might want to call the person first possessing this mutation
Adam/Eve, but there are large problems with this, see above and below.
For starters, the mutation could have happened on the chimp side of the
branch, not ours.

Do you realize that this DNA branching point between living species can
shift back in time when some sub-branches die off? For example, if just a
bunch of chimps carrying some gene common with humans dies off, the
branching point between chimps and humans can jump back in time by many
generations.

So, you can come up with many definitions for "Adam", which seem quite
arbitrary and changing in time. As for your definition ("first person
matching the full DNA profile of what we now term Homo sapiens"), it even
does not make any sense. Please read up a book or two on the subject and
only then please come to tell us what is a "scientific fact" and what is
not.

Sorry I let me carried away into this thread. Trying to avoid that in
future...

Paavo

[Qu0ll]

"Paavo Helde" wrote in message
news:XnsA2A56983F65my...@216.196.109.131...

[ranting snipped]

> Sorry I let me carried away into this thread. Trying to avoid that in
> future...

So Paavo, are you saying somewhere in there that there never was a "first
human"? Please, please say yes!

[Paavo Helde]

"Qu0ll" <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:A7qdnc9XIofkQSLP...@westnet.com.au:

> "Paavo Helde" wrote in message
> news:XnsA2A56983F65my...@216.196.109.131...
>
> [ranting snipped]
>
>> Sorry I let me carried away into this thread. Trying to avoid that in
>> future...
>
> So Paavo, are you saying somewhere in there that there never was a
> "first human"? Please, please say yes!

Cannot answer this without a meaningful definition of "first human".

Cheers
Paavo

[Qu0ll]

"Qu0ll" wrote in message
news:A7qdnc9XIofkQSLP...@westnet.com.au...

> [ranting snipped]
>
>> Sorry I let me carried away into this thread. Trying to avoid that in
>> future...
>
> So Paavo, are you saying somewhere in there that there never was a "first
> human"? Please, please say yes!

I am not surprised by your fervent ranting by the way. This is so typical
of those who try their best to disprove everything in the Bible where they
focus on some peripheral technicality and ignore the core point/meaning,
often while their hatred of religion gets in the way.

The key point I was disputing is the assertion that there was never a "first
human". It makes sense to me that if there was no "first" human then they
can be no "second", "third" or subsequent humans, something which I hope
even you would have to agree with.

If you want to wear out your keyboard disputing my rather lame/inept attempt
at a definition of the first human then go for it. How about I rephrase it
to be the "first embryo which would be classified as Homo sapiens by
whichever definition of that species *you* choose to believe in"? Still
want to dispute it?

[Paavo Helde]

"Qu0ll" <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:WvydnXlz2M8OfCLP...@westnet.com.au:

> "Qu0ll" wrote in message
> news:A7qdnc9XIofkQSLP...@westnet.com.au...
>

> I am not surprised by your fervent ranting by the way. This is so
> typical of those who try their best to disprove everything in the
> Bible where they focus on some peripheral technicality and ignore the
> core point/meaning, often while their hatred of religion gets in the
> way.

I am not interested in Bible in any way so I will not discuss it. It was
just the "technicality" which catched my eye.

> If you want to wear out your keyboard disputing my rather lame/inept
> attempt at a definition of the first human then go for it. How about
> I rephrase it to be the "first embryo which would be classified as
> Homo sapiens by whichever definition of that species *you* choose to
> believe in"? Still want to dispute it?

As I already explained, all definitions of species are somewhat vague
because the term itself is kind of statistical and inexact, and cannot be
used for exact decisions about individual members. So my answer is that
"first embryo" of any given species is a meaningless term and cannot be
really determined. It would be like to drip several partially overlapping
ink spots on the paper and then trying to establish where one spot ends and
another starts. While we can distinguish the spots in a large view, it does
not make sense to find out where exactly one spot ends and another starts.
Yet here, each molecule of ink was in a certain ink drop initially, so this
system is in some sense even better defined than the one of species.

Cheers
Paavo

[Paavo Helde]

Paavo Helde <myfir...@osa.pri.ee> wrote in
news:XnsA2A5765E71AEEm...@216.196.109.131:

> "Qu0ll" <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:WvydnXlz2M8OfCLP...@westnet.com.au:
>

>> If you want to wear out your keyboard disputing my rather lame/inept
>> attempt at a definition of the first human then go for it. How about
>> I rephrase it to be the "first embryo which would be classified as
>> Homo sapiens by whichever definition of that species *you* choose to
>> believe in"? Still want to dispute it?
>
> As I already explained, all definitions of species are somewhat vague
> because the term itself is kind of statistical and inexact, and cannot
> be used for exact decisions about individual members. So my answer is
> that "first embryo" of any given species is a meaningless term and
> cannot be really determined. It would be like to drip several
> partially overlapping ink spots on the paper and then trying to
> establish where one spot ends and another starts. While we can
> distinguish the spots in a large view, it does not make sense to find
> out where exactly one spot ends and another starts. Yet here, each
> molecule of ink was in a certain ink drop initially, so this system is
> in some sense even better defined than the one of species.

Or to put this in a slightly other terms: "species" is an abstract term
used in simplified models made up by people in order to describe the
surrounding world. All models have only limited scope where they work, as
the models are inexact by the definition. The nature itself does not know
or care about such abstract notions of "species", the various DNA molecules
existing in reality just happen to chemically react with each other in some
interesting ways, or then not. So the nature does not care about notions
like "first member of a species", there is nothing making some certain gene
mutation somehow more significant than zillions of others. And the scope of
the abstract notion "species" in the abstract models does not really work
in this territory.

Cheers
Paavo

[Qu0ll]

"Paavo Helde" wrote in message

news:XnsA2A5795729EAmy...@216.196.109.131...

> Or to put this in a slightly other terms: "species" is an abstract term
> used in simplified models made up by people in order to describe the
> surrounding world. All models have only limited scope where they work, as
> the models are inexact by the definition. The nature itself does not know
> or care about such abstract notions of "species", the various DNA
> molecules
> existing in reality just happen to chemically react with each other in
> some
> interesting ways, or then not. So the nature does not care about notions
> like "first member of a species", there is nothing making some certain
> gene
> mutation somehow more significant than zillions of others. And the scope
> of
> the abstract notion "species" in the abstract models does not really work
> in this territory.

OK, all very interesting but can you now answer my question? Do you believe
there was a first human or not?

[Paavo Helde]

"Qu0ll" <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1fadnZ8EPbf8byLP...@westnet.com.au:

> OK, all very interesting but can you now answer my question? Do you
> believe there was a first human or not?

I believe this term is ill-defined, so there is no need for me to decide if
I believe in it or not.

Paavo

[Qu0ll]

"Paavo Helde" wrote in message

news:XnsA2A57B6B933D9m...@216.196.109.131...

>> OK, all very interesting but can you now answer my question? Do you
>> believe there was a first human or not?
>
> I believe this term is ill-defined, so there is no need for me to decide
> if
> I believe in it or not.

ROFL!

[Daniel]

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:03:19 PM UTC-5, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
> From where I'm looking, half of comp.lang.c++ is wasted on the Leigh-vs-

> woodbrian off topicness and that is not how it should be.
>
Less than half, but it would be great if Leigh went back to what he does best,
what he's very good at, which is to answer questions about C++ programming. It
is the language, and only the language, that unites people here, and it is not
possible to resolve other differences here.

Although at the moment there does seem to be a shortage of questions ...

Daniel

[Alf P. Steinbach]

* Qu0ll:
> *"Paavo Helde":

> > > OK, all very interesting but can you now answer my question? Do you
> > > believe there was a first human or not?
> >
> > I believe this term is ill-defined, so there is no need for me to
> > decide if I believe in it or not.
>
> ROFL!

Paavo happens to be right that the term is ill-defined (and of course,
he's wrong about not needing to decide).

Whatever criterion one chooses for "first human" it gets probabilistic
and murky whether it's satisfied or not for any particular specimen. Our
genetic information is fuzzily defined (there is great variation between
individuals), and is just part of the molecular definition of the
species. How the genes are expressed for in-body cell activity depends
on the soup of chemicals in and between the cells, and this soup can
vary, over the lifetime of an individual, and depending on the itself
evolving environment. How the genes are expressed for procreation
depends on the opposite sex individuals in the environment.

Not to mention that people who disagree on criteria, or agree about an
incomplete set of criteria, may disagree, to the tune of tens of
thousands of years, about /when/ the first human existed.

There seems to be some similarity to the "small heap" paradox. Start
with a small heap of stones, add another typical tiny stone, then a
small heap plus a tiny stone is still a small heap. So it will be
forever small, no matter how many tiny stones are added one at a time.

I think most kinds of macro-level physical identification are that way:
fuzzy.

The Bible's stories are not much about critical rational thought anyway.
They're mostly about the opposite, namely blind obedience, supporting a
dominance hierarchy. Do not eat fruit from that tree. Do kill your son.
Do not look back on the city. Inbreeding is OK. So on.

One oddball exception: the story of Susannah (English speling?) in the
garden (or bath), where one critical-thinking young fellow prevented her
punishment of death by stoning for the crime of being raped.

I think for most Biblical stories the one, mister X, who created or
elaborated on that story probably wanted people to behave the way
indicated by the story. Blindly obeying mister X, letting him have his
way no matter how irrational or meaningless it seemed. Letting mister X
get away with having sex with his daughters, or killing his son. So on.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf (off-topic mode)

[Qu0ll]

"Alf P. Steinbach" wrote in message news:l9p2lk$ko$1...@dont-email.me...

OK, all very interesting but can you now answer my question? Do you believe
there was a first human or not?

I don't care how *you* want to define the term "first human", just answer
the question if you don't mind.

The assertion that there was no first human is what I am disputing.
Everyone seems keen to critique the Bible in general instead.

Really, it's a very simple question. Either you agree with Mr Flibble or
you don't.

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 29.12.2013 13:17, Qu0ll wrote:
>
> OK, all very interesting but can you now answer my question? Do you

> believe there was a [non-metaphorical] first human or not?

Of course not, and it's not a question of subjective belief either. The
notion of a first human is meaningless because it builds on an incorrect
assumption of the possibility of perfect, non-fuzzy and
context-independent classification. Thus any belief in that notion, or
failure to disbelieve it, is misplaced and irrational.


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf (still off-topic mode, but this has to end, there has to be a last
OT post)

[David Brown]

I think it is reasonable to say that since there is no possible
definition of a "first human" (outside of religious fiction, and even
there it is invariably inconsistent in every creation myth I have heard
of), it is fair to be categorical and say there was no "first human".

It is not uncommon amongst some religious people to deliberately
misunderstand evolution and the concept of species. They read in their
favourite book a few brief comments about early humans and other
species, then extrapolate, misinterpret and misunderstand to come up
with a theory about biology and species in which species are absolute
and well defined. It's a logical as watching "Singing in the Rain" and
coming up with a meteorological theory correlating the levels of rain
with songs, but they seem to think it makes sense.

So Biblical literalists think the two choices are "you believe God made
humans and other species as complete, individual and unchanging
concepts" or "you believe evolution made humans and other species as
complete, individual and unchanging concepts through inexplicable leaps
- one day a chimpanzee gave birth to the first human".

Despite your (and Alf's) rather good explanations of species and
"fuzziness", I doubt if you will change Qu0ll's fundamental and
self-reenforced misunderstandings.

[Paavo Helde]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote in news:l9p8bn$sth$1@dont-
email.me:

>
> I think it is reasonable to say that since there is no possible
> definition of a "first human" (outside of religious fiction, and even
> there it is invariably inconsistent in every creation myth I have heard
> of), it is fair to be categorical and say there was no "first human".

It all depends on the definitions. Humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees
(Pan troglodytes) last shared a common ancestor (CA) 5-7 million years ago
(http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.long). If we define the "first
human" to be the oldest child of CA who is also an ancestor of all humans
(or if CA did not have such child, then define "first human" to be CA
himself/herself), and for fixing this CA exactly define the species of
humans and chimps as the unions of the corresponding living individuals of
the corresponding species at 2013-12-29T00:00:00Z, then this "first human"
is most probably uniquely defined and certainly did exist (otherwise we
would not be here).

Another question is if such a definition makes much sense (I think not) and
if we would recognize this concrete individual as human (most probably not,
as he or she was or would have almost been an ancestor of chimps as well).

Cheers
Paavo

[Öö Tiib]

I believe there was at least twelve "first" humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens)
whose offspring has survived to this day. Humans might have several
ancestors among Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis or Homo Sapiens Idaltu.
It feels nonsense to believe that there was the one single "first human".
The apes did live in big packs already back then and the beneficial
mutations happen rather slowly ... not like *bang* and that's now human
but its mother and father ... no those were apes.

> I don't care how *you* want to define the term "first human", just answer
> the question if you don't mind.
>
> The assertion that there was no first human is what I am disputing.
> Everyone seems keen to critique the Bible in general instead.

I don't critique the Bible. Unlike Leigh Sausages Johnston I do find it
quite notable piece of fiction considering that some parts of it were
written 2500 years ago.

> Really, it's a very simple question. Either you agree with Mr Flibble or
> you don't.

I agree with Leigh there. I also trust that you can find better answer
(and links and reasoning) from more dedicated newsgroups (like talk.origins).

[Geoff]

And if there was a "first human", and if that definition is crisp,
then who did he/she mate with and what are the offspring called?
Because if he/she was the sole human on the planet (by definition)
then all other potential mates were sub nor non-human and their
offspring, having only 1/2 human DNA cannot be called fully human.

The bible story, of Eve being made from components of Adam certainly
makes sense from a human mated to human standpoint but the resulting
incest of the offspring certainly makes no sense genetically. For God
to set man up as a species by act of incest and then to make incest
taboo in the subsequent chapters is completely illogical. One cannot
take these stories literally, and that is the mistake of Creationists.
But then again, a world filled with the product of incest, having
recessive defects and retardation, certainly explains a lot of people
walking around in the world today. They would appear to be classified
as biblical literalists and creationists.

[Qu0ll]

"David Brown" wrote in message news:l9p8bn$sth$1...@dont-email.me...

> I think it is reasonable to say that since there is no possible definition
> of a "first human" (outside of religious fiction, and even there it is
> invariably inconsistent in every creation myth I have heard of), it is
> fair to be categorical and say there was no "first human".
>
> It is not uncommon amongst some religious people to deliberately
> misunderstand evolution and the concept of species. They read in their
> favourite book a few brief comments about early humans and other species,
> then extrapolate, misinterpret and misunderstand to come up with a theory
> about biology and species in which species are absolute and well defined.
> It's a logical as watching "Singing in the Rain" and coming up with a
> meteorological theory correlating the levels of rain with songs, but they
> seem to think it makes sense.
>
> So Biblical literalists think the two choices are "you believe God made
> humans and other species as complete, individual and unchanging concepts"
> or "you believe evolution made humans and other species as complete,
> individual and unchanging concepts through inexplicable leaps - one day a
> chimpanzee gave birth to the first human".
>
> Despite your (and Alf's) rather good explanations of species and
> "fuzziness", I doubt if you will change Qu0ll's fundamental and
> self-reenforced misunderstandings.

I find most of this rather unnecessary, judgemental and somewhat offensive.

You say things like "It is not uncommon amongst some religious people to
deliberately misunderstand evolution and the concept of species". You then
attempt to ridicule my belief that there must have been a first human with a
"Singing in the Rain" analogy. You (indirectly) suggest I may be a
"Biblical literalist". You then make the ridiculous statement that "believe

evolution made humans and other species as complete, individual and
unchanging concepts through inexplicable leaps - one day a chimpanzee gave

birth to the first human". Finally you refer to my beliefs as "fundamental
and self-reenforced (sic) misunderstandings".

Well, it appears to me that your *beliefs* are vastly more "fundamental"
than mine. And I am certainly not "deliberately misunderstanding evolution"
or the "concept of species". Further, I am certainly not a "Biblical
literalist" and neither have I ever said that the human species or any other
is a "complete, individual or unchanging concept". Finally, if you can find
a quote where I stated either directly or indirectly that "one day a
chimpanzee gave birth to the first human" then I would challenge you to post
it here.

So now that I have established that basically everything you posted here is
false, what can I make of anything else you say?

My belief that there must have been a first human has absolutely nothing
whatsoever to do with the Bible or religion in general so please do not try
to ridicule this notion by using your own hatred/fear of Christianity, the
Bible or religion as I am not referencing any of those. Just because I *am*
a Christian does not mean that I am incapable of understanding complex
scientific concepts or that I am unable to apply logic and reason (despite
what you may want to believe).

Like most contributors in this thread, you are seemingly allowing your own
religious or anti-religious views get in the way of a logical debate. You
see references to "Bible", "creation", "Adam and Eve" and you become all
defensive of anything which appears to attack your "absolutely factual"
scientific principles and go into all-out attack mode against the "myths" of
religion.

Well, how about you try to distance yourself from those emotions and
consider what I am actually suggesting (which again has nothing to do with
religion).

There is obviously some disagreement over the precise definition of a
"species" so how about this: let's say a competent anthropologist from 2013
were able to travel back in time to the period during which humans were
evolving and could stay there for 50,000 years if necessary (please don't
pick me up on the logistics of this). Let's say they are also able to
examine *every* embryo that is produced by the pre-humans or "near" humans
of the time. Would you agree that at some point they are going to be able
to perform a thorough examination of a particular embryo and make the
determination that they classifiable as "Homo sapiens"? OK, well all I am
saying is that the first time this is possible is when we have identified
the "first human".

Then I am suggesting that if that embryo is male then let's name him Adam
and Eve otherwise. You may object to the names (possibly because they make
you go all defensive again) but they're just the names I would use for the
"first human".

[Paavo Helde]

Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:our0c99m7v4roeto3...@4ax.com:

>
> And if there was a "first human", and if that definition is crisp,
> then who did he/she mate with and what are the offspring called?
> Because if he/she was the sole human on the planet (by definition)
> then all other potential mates were sub nor non-human and their
> offspring, having only 1/2 human DNA cannot be called fully human.

Yes, the other individuals of that species (common ancestor of humans and
chimps) were very similar. At this point only an heritage line started
which is not shared by current chimps. There are about 35 million single
nucleotide differences between humans and chimps, half of those gene
mutations happened in the human branch, got spread sexually and gradually
changed our species into what we see now.

Cheers
Paavo

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 29.12.2013 23:04, Qu0ll wrote:
>
> There is obviously some disagreement over the precise definition of a
> "species" so how about this: let's say a competent anthropologist from
> 2013 were able to travel back in time to the period during which humans
> were evolving and could stay there for 50,000 years if necessary (please
> don't pick me up on the logistics of this). Let's say they are also
> able to examine *every* embryo that is produced by the pre-humans or
> "near" humans of the time. Would you agree that at some point they are
> going to be able to perform a thorough examination of a particular
> embryo and make the determination that they classifiable as "Homo
> sapiens"? OK, well all I am saying is that the first time this is
> possible is when we have identified the "first human".

A more practical version of this experiment can be done with baking of
gingerbread persons like <url:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gingerbread_men.jpg> and <url:
http://jags-webdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/gingerbread-woman-costumelrgscale880193_800jpg-cplydgbw.jpg>.

Presumably you and I can agree on a reasonable definition of "finished
gingerbread person", based on properties such as color, firmness,
temperature, blah blah.

I think we can even agree that in any particular performance of the
experiment -- nom nom, fresh gingerbread person! -- each of us can
pinpoint a particular gingerbread person as the first to be finished.

Except that we won't necessarily pick the same one.

So, each performance, we can fight over whose measurements and judgment,
not to mention /definition/, is most correct. :-)


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf (seriously off-topic mode)

[Qu0ll]

"Alf P. Steinbach" wrote in message news:l9q81d$lvh$1...@dont-email.me...

[very nice analogy snipped]

> So, each performance, we can fight over whose measurements and judgment,
> not to mention /definition/, is most correct. :-)

I appreciated that analogy very much and also your "peaceful" and
non-judgemental contributions to this thread.

OK, let me put it another way. Do you think that a group (of any size) of
reputable anthropologists from the present time would argue over whether you
or I were "human" if they were to examine each of us today? Well, then
let's say the "first human" was the first embryo/individual where this also
held true (obviously ignoring the time travelling implications).

[David Brown]

On 29/12/13 23:04, Qu0ll wrote:
> "David Brown" wrote in message news:l9p8bn$sth$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>> I think it is reasonable to say that since there is no possible
>> definition of a "first human" (outside of religious fiction, and even
>> there it is invariably inconsistent in every creation myth I have
>> heard of), it is fair to be categorical and say there was no "first
>> human".
>>
>> It is not uncommon amongst some religious people to deliberately
>> misunderstand evolution and the concept of species. They read in
>> their favourite book a few brief comments about early humans and other
>> species, then extrapolate, misinterpret and misunderstand to come up
>> with a theory about biology and species in which species are absolute
>> and well defined. It's a logical as watching "Singing in the Rain" and
>> coming up with a meteorological theory correlating the levels of rain
>> with songs, but they seem to think it makes sense.
>>
>> So Biblical literalists think the two choices are "you believe God
>> made humans and other species as complete, individual and unchanging
>> concepts" or "you believe evolution made humans and other species as
>> complete, individual and unchanging concepts through inexplicable
>> leaps - one day a chimpanzee gave birth to the first human".
>>
>> Despite your (and Alf's) rather good explanations of species and
>> "fuzziness", I doubt if you will change Qu0ll's fundamental and
>> self-reenforced misunderstandings.
>
> I find most of this rather unnecessary, judgemental and somewhat offensive.

Let me start by saying that yes, this whole discussion is unnecessary.
It is very much off-topic in this group, and no one has any realistic
ideas about changing anyone else's opinions. I enjoy such off-topic
threads on occasion, and apparently so do many people here (though there
are others that dislike them) - I like to swap ideas and opinions like
this, even if it seldom leads to change or agreements. I don't agree
with certain of your beliefs, but it can be good to hear them anyway.

And yes, things get somewhat judgemental. Strong and controversial
beliefs will /always/ been judged. You judge my beliefs and opinions
against your own, and I judge yours. We can all try to limit our
judgements to the arguments and opinions expressed rather than the
people expressing them, though we also all know it is easy to stray from
that path.

Which brings me to the final point - I do not mean to be offensive. But
I know that my tone can be somewhat sarcastic or exaggerated, and of
course there is plenty of scope for writing things that can be taken in
different ways and viewed as more offensive than intended.

In particular, I made a rather large error in my post. I described (and
ridiculed) a number of more general points about extreme views, and then
I made a point that was specific to your views. I did not intend these
to be connected as they were. I believe (from your posts and questions)
that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about species and how the
question of a "first human" does not really make sense, and you I don't
think this thread will change that. But I did not mean to imply that
you were a Creationist or that you hold such extreme views. I worded
the post badly in that way, and for that I apologise. I should have
read through my post more critically before sending it.

>
> You say things like "It is not uncommon amongst some religious people to
> deliberately misunderstand evolution and the concept of species".

I said that, and it is true. However, I did not mean to imply that this
applies to /you/ specifically - it was a general statement (as were
several other points I made). At best, I could only guess that it
/might/ apply to you - after all, you had given little information about
your opinions other than a conviction that there had to have been a
"first human".

> You
> then attempt to ridicule my belief that there must have been a first
> human with a "Singing in the Rain" analogy.

I ridiculed the extrapolation many Creationists or Biblical literalists
make to go from the stories in Genesis to theories about biology. Note
that this is not a ridiculing of a Christian faith (or any other
religious faiths and beliefs) - but targeted at a specific extremist
viewpoint held by some people.

If you don't believe that, then your beliefs are not being ridiculed here.


That is /not/ the same as my disagreement about there being a "first
human" as a general point - because that depends on there being a
specific definition of a "human". If you can come up with a categoric
definition of what makes a being "human", then it /might/ be possible to
define a "first" human.

> You (indirectly) suggest I
> may be a "Biblical literalist".

If I suggested that, it was /very/ indirectly - my points were general,
not specific to you. (Again, I know it looked like they /were/ directed
at you, and I can only apologise again.)

> You then make the ridiculous statement
> that "believe evolution made humans and other species as complete,
> individual and unchanging concepts through inexplicable leaps - one day
> a chimpanzee gave birth to the first human". Finally you refer to my
> beliefs as "fundamental and self-reenforced (sic) misunderstandings".

Again, this is the sort of argument that many Creationists (or fans of
"Intelligent Design") use - not an argument that I am attributing to /you/.

>
> Well, it appears to me that your *beliefs* are vastly more "fundamental"
> than mine. And I am certainly not "deliberately misunderstanding
> evolution" or the "concept of species". Further, I am certainly not a
> "Biblical literalist" and neither have I ever said that the human
> species or any other is a "complete, individual or unchanging concept".

I don't believe that you can talk about a "first human" until you define
a "human" - without such a definition, there was no "first human". If
that is more fundamental than your beliefs, fair enough.

> Finally, if you can find a quote where I stated either directly or
> indirectly that "one day a chimpanzee gave birth to the first human"
> then I would challenge you to post it here.

As noted multiple times above, I did not mean to imply that you said or
thought this.

>
> So now that I have established that basically everything you posted here
> is false, what can I make of anything else you say?
>

I think we have established that most of what I wrote does not apply to
you, even though my clumsy writing implied that.

What we have left is that you believe that there was a "first human",
and I believe that without any kind of definition of "human" there is no
meaning to the question - and hence there was no "first human".

I think you are wrong to think there can be a clear definition of
"human" - the move from "pre-human" ancestors to "modern human" was
gradual, with a great deal of overlap. Species are not disjoint - it is
not possible to say that one generation was "homo rhodesiensis" and the
next generation was "homo sapiens". There is no dividing line.

At best, one could pick specific genetic mutations and say that these
are specific to humans, and therefore the first hominin with that gene
was the "first human". (Other non-genetic characteristics, such as
walking upright, using tools, talking, etc., are far more diffuse and
even harder to categorise.) But there are many such genes, and for at
least some of them it is not unlikely that they evolved more than once
independently.

Even when you can give defining characteristics to something, and give a
clear decision to "this is an X", you do not necessarily have a "first"
member. Consider the set of real numbers greater than 1. It is easy to
see if a given number is in this set - yet it has no "first" member.

> My belief that there must have been a first human has absolutely nothing
> whatsoever to do with the Bible or religion in general so please do not
> try to ridicule this notion by using your own hatred/fear of
> Christianity, the Bible or religion as I am not referencing any of
> those. Just because I *am* a Christian does not mean that I am
> incapable of understanding complex scientific concepts or that I am
> unable to apply logic and reason (despite what you may want to believe).
>

Fair enough. I am not against religion in itself - I have seen the good
effects of religious faith as well as the bad effects. I am against
irrationality in the name of religion, and I am against the abuse of
human rights in the name of religion - but I know that the same applies
to many religious people.

> Like most contributors in this thread, you are seemingly allowing your
> own religious or anti-religious views get in the way of a logical
> debate. You see references to "Bible", "creation", "Adam and Eve" and
> you become all defensive of anything which appears to attack your
> "absolutely factual" scientific principles and go into all-out attack
> mode against the "myths" of religion.
>
> Well, how about you try to distance yourself from those emotions and
> consider what I am actually suggesting (which again has nothing to do
> with religion).

OK, I accept that criticism. I mixed things up in that post when they
should have been separate.

>
> There is obviously some disagreement over the precise definition of a
> "species" so how about this: let's say a competent anthropologist from
> 2013 were able to travel back in time to the period during which humans
> were evolving and could stay there for 50,000 years if necessary (please
> don't pick me up on the logistics of this). Let's say they are also
> able to examine *every* embryo that is produced by the pre-humans or
> "near" humans of the time. Would you agree that at some point they are
> going to be able to perform a thorough examination of a particular
> embryo and make the determination that they classifiable as "Homo
> sapiens"?

I am happy to accept your thought experiment here, but I would /not/
agree that there would be a point at which he could say "these are homo
sapiens, but their ancestors were pre-humans".

/If/ I thought such a classification were possible, then I would be
agreeing with you about the existence of a "first human". But just as
there is no clear dividing line between "small piles of stones" and "big
piles of stones", there is no clear dividing line between pre-humans and
humans.

If your anthropologist were to jump back in time to find a group of homo
rhodesiensis and follow it through thousands of generations, he would
view it as a group of pre-humans that was gradually evolving. If he
were to time-jump a little forward and find a group of humans, and
follow them backwards through thousands of generations, he would view
them as a group of humans with evolution viewed in reverse. And in the
middle, there would be thousands of generations when he was viewing the
/same/ group - but classifying it differently as "late pre-humans" and
"early humans" depending on the viewpoint.

> OK, well all I am saying is that the first time this is
> possible is when we have identified the "first human".
>
> Then I am suggesting that if that embryo is male then let's name him
> Adam and Eve otherwise. You may object to the names (possibly because
> they make you go all defensive again) but they're just the names I would
> use for the "first human".
>

The names would be fine - I just don't agree that such "people" existed.

Note that this is not the same as saying I don't believe in common
ancestors - the genetic, fossil, geological, statistical and biological
arguments for common ancestors are very strong. There have been
particular genetic changes at different stages that have enabled
significant changes to the lifestyle of following generations, and such
steps have resulted in the first carrier of that gene being a common
ancestor.

All I am arguing is that such common ancestors cannot be considered to
be the "first human".

[Qu0ll]

"David Brown" wrote in message news:l9rgnc$9k3$1...@dont-email.me...


Reply at the end, sorry for the lack of indentation...

---------------------------------------------------------------

David, I would like to express my sincere thanks for the humility you
displayed in this post. I did take your references and quotes to be
directed at me but I accept now that they were not so it's all good.

I happen to know where you are coming from in many of the things you said.
Unfortunately extreme Creationists and fundamentalists give Christians as a
whole a bad reputation as being people incapable of logical thought and
dismissive of anything remotely scientific. This is not limited to
Christianity however, just as terrorists give Muslims a bad name and also
just as white supremacists, "rednecks", racists etc. give non-religious
people a bad name. Pretty much any form of extremism (religious or
otherwise) can paint an entire section of society in a poor light.

Thankfully there are many Christians with very "modern" outlooks on life and
with very open-minded views. I myself am very highly educated having
degrees in two branches of science and believe I am more than capable of
evaluating evidence appropriately.

I guess the main difference between me and someone like you (or a
non-Christian) is that I absolutely believe that science does not have all
the answers and there are things in this universe that science cannot and
will never be able to explain fully.

Anyway, this thread is definitely way off-topic (and clearly has been for
some time) but I *still* believe that there must have been a "first human".
Even if Homo sapiens did in fact evolve more than once independently, one of
those "new" individuals *must* have evolved first, even if only by a
nanosecond. Contrary to your views and that of others in this thread, I
very firmly believe that logic insists that there must have been at least
one point where the offspring was human and the parent not fully human.

I guess we can agree to disagree on this point and leave it there...

[David Brown]

On 30/12/13 11:32, Qu0ll wrote:
> "David Brown" wrote in message news:l9rgnc$9k3$1...@dont-email.me...
>
<snip for space>

>
> David, I would like to express my sincere thanks for the humility you
> displayed in this post. I did take your references and quotes to be
> directed at me but I accept now that they were not so it's all good.

It was my fault, and I'm glad there are no ill feelings over the clumsy
post.

>
> I happen to know where you are coming from in many of the things you
> said. Unfortunately extreme Creationists and fundamentalists give
> Christians as a whole a bad reputation as being people incapable of
> logical thought and dismissive of anything remotely scientific. This is
> not limited to Christianity however, just as terrorists give Muslims a
> bad name and also just as white supremacists, "rednecks", racists etc.
> give non-religious people a bad name. Pretty much any form of extremism
> (religious or otherwise) can paint an entire section of society in a
> poor light.

Indeed - we must all strive not to tar people with the same brush.

>
> Thankfully there are many Christians with very "modern" outlooks on life
> and with very open-minded views. I myself am very highly educated
> having degrees in two branches of science and believe I am more than
> capable of evaluating evidence appropriately.
>
> I guess the main difference between me and someone like you (or a
> non-Christian) is that I absolutely believe that science does not have
> all the answers and there are things in this universe that science
> cannot and will never be able to explain fully.

I am not sure that is quite right - I /also/ believe there are things
that science will never fully explain. The difference is that I don't
appeal to a "higher power" for the explanation - I just accept that
sometimes things are the way they are, and we will never know why. Why
are the fundamental constants in physics balanced in such a way that
molecular physics work? I don't expect science to give a complete
answer (maybe it will, but I don't expect so) - but I don't feel the
need to say "God set things up that way". But if you like to think
that, that's fine by me.

>
> Anyway, this thread is definitely way off-topic (and clearly has been
> for some time) but I *still* believe that there must have been a "first
> human". Even if Homo sapiens did in fact evolve more than once
> independently, one of those "new" individuals *must* have evolved first,
> even if only by a nanosecond. Contrary to your views and that of others
> in this thread, I very firmly believe that logic insists that there must
> have been at least one point where the offspring was human and the
> parent not fully human.
>
> I guess we can agree to disagree on this point and leave it there...
>

I can agree with that :-)

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:03:19 PM UTC-6, Jorgen Grahn wrote:

>
> In other words: please don't feed the trolls. From where I'm looking,

> half of comp.lang.c++ is wasted on the Leigh-vs-woodbrian offtopicness
> and that is not how it should be.

I think Leigh asked a fair question about longevity.
I've been answering as best I can, and of course others
chime in. Although some post here in an attempt to
discredit me, I'm hopeful those who examine the software
on my site will consider it good. And I believe those
who work with me will find I'm interested in improving
my software by thinking about it through their project.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust.
http://webEbenezer.net

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Mon, 2013-12-30, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:03:19 PM UTC-6, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
>>
>> In other words: please don't feed the trolls. From where I'm looking,
>> half of comp.lang.c++ is wasted on the Leigh-vs-woodbrian offtopicness
>> and that is not how it should be.
>
> I think Leigh asked a fair question about longevity.

Maybe elsewhere in the thread, but not in the part I (unfortunately)
happened read.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 27, 2013 5:57:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote;
>
> Again: your bible is a fiction,

Some have looked into it:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164


I'm not going to see the recent "Noah" movie, though.
It isn't worth a penny even.

[David Brown]

On 04/04/14 04:47, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 5:57:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote;
>>
>> Again: your bible is a fiction,
>
> Some have looked into it:
>
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164
>

A bunch of students doing a back-of-the-envelope estimation based on
guesses of ancient measurements about an exaggerated story copied from
even older stories (the Bible authors copied it from Babylonian legends)
does not constitute the slightest evidence for any of the Bible. It's
some students doing a light-hearted project, hoping the department will
pay for a night out at the cinema as "research".

Plus - there were not 35,000 species of animal in Noah's time (assuming,
for the moment, that there was such a person around 6000 years ago).
3,500,000 would be closer if you don't count the microscopic animals,
and don't count other types of life (plants, fungi, bacteria, etc.).
Second, many animals (the "clean" ones) were in sevens, not twos.
Third, using the building materials and techniques available at that
time, a ship that size would be impossible to construct - it would
collapse under its own weight, if it were even possible to find enough
material and people to build it.

And that's before you look at the story itself, rather than just the
ship - the ecology, physics and biology involved clearly put it at the
same level of realism as Star Wars and Harry Potter.

Accept the Bible for what it is - a collection of teachings, parables,
myths and legends, with a few bits of biased history along the way,
written to give some moral guidance and keep the Jews as a separate
people with a clear power structure.

>
> I'm not going to see the recent "Noah" movie, though.

Watch "The Life of Brian" instead - it might make you think a little, as
well as making you laugh.

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 4 April 2014 10:19:10 UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
> On 04/04/14 04:47, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 27, 2013 5:57:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote;
> >>
> >> Again: your bible is a fiction,
> >
> > Some have looked into it:
> >
> > http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164
> >
>
> A bunch of students doing a back-of-the-envelope estimation based on
> guesses of ancient measurements about an exaggerated story copied from
> even older stories (the Bible authors copied it from Babylonian legends)
> does not constitute the slightest evidence for any of the Bible. It's
> some students doing a light-hearted project, hoping the department will
> pay for a night out at the cinema as "research".
>
> Plus - there were not 35,000 species of animal in Noah's time (assuming,
> for the moment, that there was such a person around 6000 years ago).

Plus - Noah had probably to loan reindeer of Santa Claus to collect
even 35,000 species from all world (whole year, 100 species per day)?

Plus - living beings consume lot more food and fresh water than they
weight during one year. Otherwise they die of thirst and starvation.

Everything can be anyway like in Bible. One has just to trust that
we live in Matrix-like simulation that perfectly runs by the rules
of nature unless Administrator issues some sort of change from
"outside". It may be possible to prove that it is simulation but it
is impossible to prove that it is not. Alleged situation can let one
to hand-wave all issues with any story away with ultimate
explanation "goddidit".

Being afraid of Administrator (just for a case) can make sense for
people who can't find any reasons to stay decent otherwise. However
taking such apparent man-made fairy tales literally can't help
with anything in modern time, is there a God or not. ;)

[Chris Vine]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 19:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 5:57:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote;
> >
> > Again: your bible is a fiction,
>
> Some have looked into it:
>
> http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164

But are you happy with the temperature of heaven, which is clearly on
the biblical record hotter than hell. Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover,
the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun and the light of
the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days." Thus Heaven
receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from the Sun, and in
addition 7 x 7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the Sun, or 50
times in all. The light we receive from the Moon is one 1/10,000 of
the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that ... The
radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat
lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation,
namely that Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by
radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50,
where E is the absolute temperature of the earth (-300K), gives H as
798K (525C). The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed ...
However, Revelations 21:8 says "But the fearful, and unbelieving ...
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone means that its temperature must
be at or below its boiling point, 444.6C.

We have, then, that Heaven, at 525C is hotter than Hell at 445C. This
sounds most uncomfortable me but clearly you need to start collecting
together asbestos for either particular destination.

[Drew Lawson]

In article <24eae7ab-d46a-4143...@googlegroups.com>

woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>On Friday, December 27, 2013 5:57:23 PM UTC-6, Mr Flibble wrote;
>>
>> Again: your bible is a fiction,
>
>Some have looked into it:
>
>http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164

The only thing that is even more tiresome than religious battles
is people arguing for an account that they apparently have not read.
The biblical arc did not hold *two* of every kind. That is the
popular cliche. There were 7 pairs of everything except for the
unclean beasts.

Tell the students to multiply by something approaching 7 and do
their homework again.

Not that this would prove anything, other than that they shouldn't
publish before they are ready.

--
Drew Lawson What would Brian Boitano do?

[Wouter van Ooijen]

>
> Not that this would prove anything, other than that they shouldn't
> publish before they are ready.
>

And it raises .

Wouter van Ooijen

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 4, 2014 8:20:21 AM UTC-5, Drew Lawson wrote:
> In article <24eae7ab-d46a-4143...@googlegroups.com>

>
> >http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/university-of-leicester-physics-students-says-noahs-ark-would-have-floated-with-two-each-of-35000-species-of-animal/story-fn5fsgyc-1226874097164
>
>
>
> The only thing that is even more tiresome than religious battles
> is people arguing for an account that they apparently have not read.
> The biblical arc did not hold *two* of every kind. That is the
> popular cliche. There were 7 pairs of everything except for the
> unclean beasts.
>
> Tell the students to multiply by something approaching 7 and do
> their homework again.
>

I don't know the students. But my understanding is
the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of
the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think
35,000 species were on the ark.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[Dombo]

Op 04-Apr-14 11:11, Chris Vine schreef:
<SNIP>

> radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50,
> where E is the absolute temperature of the earth (-300K)

-300 Kelvin ???

[Chris Vine]

Typo: ~300K

Chris

[David Brown]

So you accept the word of the Bible, with absolutely /no/ other
evidence, that there was a flood and an ark. And yet you reject, with
absolutely no evidence, the Bible's description of the flood affecting
the world rather than just a local region?

If you are going to reduce the Bible's exaggerations until they start
sounding less daft, why not take it to the level of reasonable likelihood?

There have always been regional floods around the world. And I'm sure
that at one point, there was a guy who thought that these particular
rains look bad, so he put his family and farm animals on a boat or raft
- thus saving them while the rest of the village got swamped.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 7:34:05 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
> On 04/04/14 17:47, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > I don't know the students. But my understanding is
> > the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of
> > the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think
> > 35,000 species were on the ark.
>
> So you accept the word of the Bible, with absolutely /no/ other
> evidence, that there was a flood and an ark. And yet you reject, with
> absolutely no evidence, the Bible's description of the flood affecting
> the world rather than just a local region?

It could have been the known world - an area equivalent
to the size of the US.

>
> If you are going to reduce the Bible's exaggerations until they start
> sounding less daft, why not take it to the level of reasonable likelihood?
>
> There have always been regional floods around the world. And I'm sure
> that at one point, there was a guy who thought that these particular
> rains look bad, so he put his family and farm animals on a boat or raft
> - thus saving them while the rest of the village got swamped.

Much bigger than a village.

The Bible says, "The righteous shall live by faith."
Our ancestors did so and gave us the motto - "In G-d
we trust." My other evidence is in terms of G-d's
faithfulness to me.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Was Eisenhower the last decent President?
http://webEbenezer.net

[Juha Nieminen]

woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't know the students. But my understanding is
> the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of
> the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think
> 35,000 species were on the ark.

It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.

You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number
was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern
times. They were not built of wood. There's a maximum size that you
can build from wood before it crumbles under its own weight.)

Even if it were to build a boat of that size from wood alone (it's
not, but let's assume it is), it's logistically impossible to do with
such a small crew with bronze-age technology.

Building a boat of that size with such a small crew and such primitive
technology would have taken decades, if not hundreds of years. "That's
fine", you say, "Noah was hundreds of years old." Yeah, sure, let's
accept that myth. However, that's not the problem. The problem is that
a wooden structure of that size would require constant maintenance,
especially given that it's constantly exposed to the elements. At some
point, when the structure reaches a certain size, the amount of
maintenance will take all the effort of the four-man crew, stopping
them from actually building any more of it.

Even if the boat wouldn't crumble under its own weight, it just cannot
be seaworthy. There's a lot of engineering that goes into building big
modern vessels, such as oil tankers. The sea exerts all kinds of stress
onto the ship and it has to be designed to withstand them.

Even if it had been just a *building* made of wood, rather than a boat,
it would have been completely unprecedent for the time. The technology
just wasn't there and, once again, there's a limit of how big a wooden
structure can be.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:23:46 PM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I don't know the students. But my understanding is
>
> > the majority of animals are unclean. I'm also of
>
> > the opinion it was a regional flood. So I don't think
>
> > 35,000 species were on the ark.
>
>
>
> It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
> unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
> and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
> probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
>
> You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number
> was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
> other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
> humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
> and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern
> times. They were not built of wood. There's a maximum size that you
> can build from wood before it crumbles under its own weight.)
>

Probably their wives helped work on the ark also.
Noah may have received more instructions on how
to build it than are in the Bible.
Maybe they could afford to hire some people to help
them. As far as the elements, I don't think it rained
prior to the flood.

[Scott Lurndal]

You don't think. Period.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:46:00 PM UTC, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> You don't think. Period.

The proof is in the pudding:

http://webEbenezer.net/build_integration.html

I don't claim it's perfect, but believe it's good and
want to make it (code, documentation, etc.) better.
Feel free to offer some ideas on how to do so. As
I've said before I've been blessed to get a lot of
ideas on how to do that via newsgroups. In recent
months I've found ideas from these pages that have
helped me improve the software.

[David Brown]

There is no way to make the story, as described in the Bible, remotely
realistic. It is a fable, just like the myths and legends that every
religion has - they exist to form a background to the religion, god(s),
and questions such as "where do we come from?". Throughout the entire
history of human culture, as far as we know it, religions have had such
myths - and /nobody/ has treated them as though they were realistic,
normal facts or historical accounts, until the Bible literalists came
along in the 19th century (because Darwin upset them). Religious
believers have happily said such stories were true, and that they
believed them - but it is a different sense of "true". This other sense
of "true" is part of a religious faith - it's the same thing people mean
when they say they know logically that there cannot be a God, but they
know he exists nonetheless.

I think it is a sad thing when religious people try to justify tales
from the Bible (or Koran, or any other religious book) in terms of
realistic science and technology, rather than just accepting the
intended lesson ("Don't mess with God - he can has the power to destroy
us all. But fortunately he is a merciful and forgiving guy.")

It is a lot like books with titles such as "The Science of Middle Earth"
trying to explain Sauron's genetic engineering of the orcs.


If you think that the story of Noah and the ark really happened as
described in the Bible, then there is only one rational, logical and
consistent explanation - God waved his magic wand and made it happen
with no regard to the laws of physics, biology and ecology which apply
to everyday life. And then he waved it again in order to hide all
evidence of what "really" happened, and to create vast amounts of fake
evidence for future scientists to find - just to ensure that no one
could ever know for sure that God exists.

And if you believe in /that/ level of conspiracy, you might as well join
the last-thursdayists, as the evidence is just as strong.


I have nothing against religious belief itself - if someone feels their
lives are enhanced by a "relationship with God" of some sort, then
that's fine. I am all in favour of people getting the best they can
from their lives, as long as it is not at the expense of others. But
irrationality and wilful ignorance and stupidity bug me - whether it is
religiously based or not. (Non-wilful ignorance is cured by information
and education, and non-wilful stupidity just has to be accepted.)

[Scott Lurndal]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:
>On Monday, April 7, 2014 7:46:00 PM UTC, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>> You don't think. Period.
>
>
>The proof is in the pudding:

Nice snip. You stated that it never rained prior to the flood.

I'd ask how many customers you have for your marshalling framework
(how, again, is it better than XDR or XML?), but I don't particularly care.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 1:26:36 PM UTC, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> I'd ask how many customers you have for your marshalling framework

This is a new approach... I don't have a lot of users yet.
How many users do these guys -- http://springfuse.com --
have?

I think of it as a library.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:23:46 PM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>
>

> It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
> unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
> and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
> probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
>
> You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number>
> was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
> other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
> humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
> and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern

Noah and family would put Olympians to shame:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2614780/How-FARMERS-fitter-athletes-Human-strength-speed-peaked-7-300-years-ago-declining-rapidly.html

[David Brown]

The article is about people 7300 years ago - isn't that long before the
world was created, according to creationists?

There are lots of people around the world that are much stronger, fitter
and faster than modern Western athletes - it's a matter of lifestyle,
genetics, and evolution. Different groups of people in different places
and different times have evolved in different ways (some good ways, some
bad ways), just as happens with all lifeforms.

And even if there was such a person as Noah, and even if he were fitter
and stronger than any current Olympian, it would take a mythological
Greek Olympian to build the boat (assuming it were physically possible,
which it is not).

[Qu0ll]

"Juha Nieminen" wrote in message news:lhsnm0$2bpo$1...@adenine.netfront.net...

Reply at the end...

-----------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------


For me, to believe that there is some degree of truth in the story of Noah's
Ark means accepting that there was considerable divine intervention at every
step of the way. Personally I have no problem with that and don't try to
"prove" the story based on science alone and nor do I feel I need to.

If there wasn't a divine force or supernatural powers then not much of the
Bible makes sense anyway. I believe Jesus was God and rose from the dead.
Nothing scientific in that. Not a problem for me.

[David Brown]

That's consistent, I suppose.

However, I think it makes more sense to divide the Bible stories into
three fairly obvious categories.

One is the divine or supernatural parts - such as Jesus rising from the
dead. That sort of thing is clearly a matter of belief and not
scientific, but still has to be accepted as basically factual if you are
a believer at all.

Another group is the historical stuff - things like the records of the
kings of Israel, or the letters to the early Christian church. These
are probably at least partly based on real lives and events, though
highly biased (as many histories are) and almost entirely without
third-party corroboration. Much of these parts are not particularly
relevant anyway.

Finally, there are the myths, allegories, legends, fairy tales, and
parables. This includes the creation myths, Noah's arch, and much of
the books of Moses. If you treat these the way most religions treat
their myths (including the way almost all Christians treated them until
a couple of centuries ago), they are stories to describe God, his
relationship to people, his strengths, his weaknesses, and how he wants
people to behave. It is pointless to try to view these things as "real"
events - it involves so much waving of magic wands and divine
intervention that it becomes meaningless as "real" events, and you lose
all purpose and teaching from the story. When Jesus told the parable of
the lost sheep, he did not mean it literally - the same applies to the
old prophets talking about Noah's ark and similar tales.

If you believe in a creator God, and you believe he cares for you, then
you have /got/ to believe he gave you rational sense for a purpose and
expects you to use it. If he wanted you to have blind faith in what
people tell you, he'd have made you a North Korean.

[Scott Lurndal]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> writes:
>On 29/04/14 03:19, woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 6, 2014 6:23:46 PM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It is taking Ken Ham over 73 million dollars to build a completely
>>> unseaworthy ark "replica" using modern technology, modern materials,
>>> and a crew of probably hundreds of people. This "replica" would
>>> probably not float even for a minute, much less be safe on the ocean.
>>>
>>> You believe that one man and his three sons (or whatever the number>
>>> was) was able to build a wooden boat that's vastly bigger than any
>>> other boat made of wood that has ever been built in the history of
>>> humanity, with bronze-age technology and a crew of about four people,
>>> and have it seaworthy? (Sure, bigger boats have been built in modern
>>
>> Noah and family would put Olympians to shame:
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2614780/How-FARMERS-fitter-athletes-Human-strength-speed-peaked-7-300-years-ago-declining-rapidly.html
>>
>
>The article is about people 7300 years ago - isn't that long before the
>world was created, according to creationists?

And it's in the Daily Mail. Similar levels of veracity as History Channel.