Artificial brain 10 years or sooner?
spintronic
55 million virtual neurons.
2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
brain) 4 years away.
Same again and we have 1.35404959 × 10^12 neurons or a computer
13.5404959 times more powerful than a human brain by the year 2013.
Boikat
Do you welcome your new cybernetic ovelord?
Boikat
Stephen Wolstenholme
Developing the hardware is the easy bit. Getting it to do something
will be much, much more difficult.
Steve
--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:54:43 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
Science cannot duplicate the complexity of an insect how could it ever
duplicate the workings of the brain?
spintronic
My question is why do you deny one exists?
If you know it is possible to have an infinitely more intelligible
machine than you?
And my second question is where are the alien counterparts?
spintronic
wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:54:43 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
Apparently this is a virtual simulation of *every* synaptic pathway.
So it literally will be a ground-up model of human brain.
The neurons are already firing in the predicted network patters, of
the cortex's they have modelled so far.
There are a few videos on TED.
The reason it will be easier than expected, is because the groundwork
is already discovered for each pathway.
And the algorithms that simulate each type of neuron have already been
discovered.
Now it's just a matter of computing, which in reality is only
constrained by the size of the room you can fit as many processors in
as possible,
with the size of a processor of current technology.
I think the current one is using as much wattage as your house does in
a year.
Instead of the 20 or so your brain uses.
So even though the virtual brain may be more powerful, it won't be
more efficient.
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gen 11:1 (Just like the internet has brought about again for the
second time)
Gen 11:6 (Just like today)
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
You are so lucky to live in a complex civilization that relies on
science to keep you alive as you choose to remain ignorant and foolish.
Will in New Haven
You left out stubborn, illiterate and smug.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
Do you know the difference between intelligible and intelligent? Do
you think one is just a different word for the other?
Did you get out of third grade without cheating?
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey idiot. Science causes the disease and now we have to depend on it
for the cure.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
How did science make you into an ignorance-worshipping fool?
Eric Root
Is it attracted to virtual cheese? Is it afraid of a virtual cat?
Eric Root
Eric Root
Who knows what science will be able to do next year, or next century?
Eric Root
heekster
wrote:
They've already managed to duplicate adman's brain, exactly.
heekster
Science caused you to become a willfully ignorant, imbecile
creationist?
David Hare-Scott
> On Nov 22, 11:13 am, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:54:43 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>>
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2 years ago, the Blue Brain project created a virtual rat cortex
>>> with 55 million virtual neurons.
>>
>>> 2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
>>> 1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
>>
>>> That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
>>> 600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
>>> brain) 4 years away.
>>
>>
>>> 13.5404959 times more powerful than a human brain by the year 2013.
>>
>> Developing the hardware is the easy bit. Getting it to do something
>> will be much, much more difficult.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> --
>> Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
>
> Science cannot duplicate the complexity of an insect how could it ever
> duplicate the workings of the brain?
You know little science and understand less but you confidently predict the
future of scientific development. A clear revelation of the power of your
intellect and honesty.
David
Boikat
> On Nov 22, 5:13 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 10:54 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 2 years ago, the Blue Brain project created a virtual rat cortex with
> > > 55 million virtual neurons.
>
> > > 2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
> > > 1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
>
> > > That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
> > > 600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
> > > brain) 4 years away.
>
> > > Same again and we have 1.35404959 × 10^12 neurons or a computer
>
> > > 13.5404959 times more powerful than a human brain by the year 2013.
>
> > Do you welcome your new cybernetic ovelord?
>
> > Boikat
>
> My question is why do you deny one exists?
There's a cybernetic overlord? Is his name HAL, by chance?
>
> If you know it is possible to have an infinitely more intelligible
> machine than you?
I'm sure it is.
>
> And my second question is where are the alien counterparts?
*If* they exist, aside from a few samples now and then. they are
probably avoiding official open contact (spacecraft on the White House
lawn) and are waiting for humanity, as a whole, to grow out of your
religious superstitious stage of social development. I doubt any
sufficienty advanced species of aliens wants to be worshiped as
"gods", and any reasonably intelligent species of aliens would not
want a bunch of ignorant hominids running loose in the Galaxy,
spreading the message of "Worship our One and Only God, deny science,
or we will kill you".
Or, it could be that FTL interstellar travel is impossible, and
multigeneration "Ark Ships" too impractical by any measure.
Or, they are here, and one is hiding under your bed, and every night,
sucks a piece or your cerebral cortex out of your skull with a soda
straw.
Boikat
Boikat
Boikat
Stupid shit. RTFA
Boikat
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Stephen Wolstenholme
<st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:54:43 -0800 (PST), spintronic
><spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>>13.5404959 times more powerful than a human brain by the year 2013.
>Developing the hardware is the easy bit. Getting it to do something
>will be much, much more difficult.
....as we constantly observe here.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Boikat
Oh? And there were no diseases before "science" was formalized? Are
you that fucking stupid?
> and now we have to depend on it
> for the cure.
You must be trying to out-stupid spinny.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Probably some new way to kill man and the earth even faster then it
can now.
All-seeing-I
Fools like you telling everyone science is sooooo good.
Shall we start with water, or chemical spills? How about guns, gun
powder, bombs, nuclear/biological toxic waste, air polution, medical
mishaps and drug deaths .... oh the list is quite long
You worship science and then call me "an ignorance-worshipping fool"?
heh.. very amusing.
Boikat
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now, that's just nasty.
This is more accurate:
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/06/adem/pictures/absolut/images/bullshit.jpg
Boikat
Boikat
"tards like you telling everyone science is bad, evil, wrong, and so
on. Back to your cave, fool.
>
> Shall we start with water, or chemical spills? How about guns, gun
> powder, bombs, nuclear/biological toxic waste, air polution, medical
> mishaps and drug deaths .... oh the list is quite long
Again, you blame the mistakes and misues of science by man on science,
and ignore the sucesses. You also ignore the misuse of *religion* by
man, and do not blane religions.
>
> You worship science
Liar. Nobody "worships" science.
> and then call me "an ignorance-worshipping fool"?
If the shoe fits, asshole.
>
> heh.. very amusing.
Yes, you are. But you're also stupid and probably ugly, too.
Boikat
Nashton
An Apple ][ I have lying around in the basement is smarter, faster and
wittier than most of the clueless goons in here. And its power supply is
broken...
Nashton
>
> You are so lucky to live in a complex civilization that relies on
> science to keep you alive as you choose to remain ignorant and foolish.
>
Is this some kind of sick joke?
Boikat
Probably true, but after you pour some beer into spinny or assmonkey,
they run for about two hours.
Boikat
Boikat
Only to hypocritical ludites, like you and assmonkey.
Boikat
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Thank you for misrepresenting what I said. I couldn't expect anything
else from you.
>Shall we start with water, or chemical spills? How about guns, gun
>powder, bombs, nuclear/biological toxic waste, air polution, medical
>mishaps and drug deaths .... oh the list is quite long
You seem unable to tell the difference between science and technology.
>You worship science and then call me "an ignorance-worshipping fool"?
You reject science while not knowing what it is and do so on a tool
developed from scientific discoveries.
>heh.. very amusing.
Don't you wish.
spintronic
> On Nov 22, 11:41 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 22, 5:13 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 22, 10:54 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 2 years ago, the Blue Brain project created a virtual rat cortex with
> > > > 55 million virtual neurons.
>
> > > > 2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
> > > > 1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
>
> > > > That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
> > > > 600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
> > > > brain) 4 years away.
>
> > > > Same again and we have 1.35404959 × 10^12 neurons or a computer
>
> > > > 13.5404959 times more powerful than a human brain by the year 2013.
.
> > > Do you welcome your new cybernetic ovelord?
>
> > My question is why do you deny one exists?
>
> There's a cybernetic overlord?
Really? where?
> Is his name HAL, by chance?
You tell me, he's your god.
> > If you know it is possible to have an infinitely more intelligible
> > machine than you?
>
> I'm sure it is.
Ya, it's called a ZX Spectrum.
> > And my second question is where are the alien counterparts?
>
> *If* they exist, aside from a few samples now and then.
They would have technology to search the universe vastly superiour to
ours.
> they are probably avoiding official open contact
Oh dear. Let me guess, the "prime directive"?
They would have one only for 1reason.
1) Intelligent life is everywhere, so one is required.
So where they & them?
> (spacecraft on the White House lawn) and are waiting for humanity,
> as a whole, to grow out of your religious superstitious stage of social development.
So why not seperate the wheat from the chaff and beam you all up to a
better place?
> Or, it could be that FTL interstellar travel is impossible,
Nothings impossible.
> and multigeneration "Ark Ships" too impractical by any measure.
Why multigeneration? They would be immortal.
Why not set sail on their slower than light craft? And enjoy the
journey.
It's only a maximun of 200,000 years at half C.
Where are they?
> Or, they are here, and one is hiding under your bed, and every night,
> sucks a piece or your cerebral cortex out of your skull with a soda
> straw.
Ya, he's name is J.J.
Boikat
> On 22 Nov, 21:51, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> .
>
> > > > Do you welcome your new cybernetic ovelord?
>
> > > My question is why do you deny one exists?
>
> > There's a cybernetic overlord?
>
> Really? where?
See this => ? <=? It's called a question mark. I know your delusion
of adequacy causes you to believe that is some way you are "clever",
and followin a line of logic is a real problem for you, however, your
"My question is why you deny one exists?" implies that you believe a
"cybernetic overlord" exists. My reply of "There's a cybernetic
overlord?" clearly implies I doubt the permise of your question. Your
reply of "Really? Where?" shows that you shot your yap off again, are
are fleeing into evasion, again.
>
> > Is his name HAL, by chance?
>
> You tell me, he's your god.
I have no "god".
>
> > > If you know it is possible to have an infinitely more intelligible
> > > machine than you?
>
> > I'm sure it is.
>
> Ya, it's called a ZX Spectrum.
For you, it's called "A Pocket Calculator", and a cheap one at that.
>
> > > And my second question is where are the alien counterparts?
>
> > *If* they exist, aside from a few samples now and then.
>
> They would have technology to search the universe vastly superiour to
> ours.
>
Hypothetically, sure.
> > they are probably avoiding official open contact
>
> Oh dear. Let me guess, the "prime directive"?
"Common Sense". It's probably a concept that you're not familiar
with.
>
> They would have one only for 1reason.
>
> 1) Intelligent life is everywhere, so one is required.
Sorry? "one" what?
>
> So where they & them?
I already proposed an answer to that.
>
> > (spacecraft on the White House lawn) and are waiting for humanity,
> > as a whole, to grow out of your religious superstitious stage of social development.
>
> So why not seperate the wheat from the chaff and beam you all up to a
> better place?
Maybe that's against their rules.
>
> > Or, it could be that FTL interstellar travel is impossible,
>
> Nothings impossible.
Then, using you logic, why hasn't it been invented yet? But there is
one thing that is apparently impossible: Educating Creationists. But
thats more due to willful ignorance on their part.
>
> > and multigeneration "Ark Ships" too impractical by any measure.
>
> Why multigeneration? They would be immortal.
As you wish, hypothetically.
>
> Why not set sail on their slower than light craft? And enjoy the
> journey.
>
> It's only a maximun of 200,000 years at half C.
>
> Where are they?
See above. Besides, "they" may not be anywhere near the our solar
system, and even if *life* is common in the universe, that's not the
same as *intelligent* life being common, which would be a more rare
phenomenon.
>
> > Or, they are here, and one is hiding under your bed, and every night,
> > sucks a piece or your cerebral cortex out of your skull with a soda
> > straw.
>
> Ya, he's name is J.J.
Your paranoid delusions are showing, again.
Boikat
bpuharic
>2 years ago, the Blue Brain project created a virtual rat cortex with
>55 million virtual neurons.
>
>2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
>1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
>
>That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
>600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
>brain) 4 years away.
>
>
>Same again and we have 1.35404959 × 10^12 neurons or a computer
>
>13.5404959 times more powerful than a human brain by the year 2013.
the day they invent an artificial brain will be the end of
creationism. after that, creationsits will have no excuse for their
brainless ideas
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>Science cannot duplicate the complexity of an insect how could it ever
>duplicate the workings of the brain?
and man will never fly, right?
bpuharic
why dont you have god fix it? you guys think he does all kinds of
stuff like that
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Fools like you telling everyone science is sooooo good.
>
>Shall we start with water, or chemical spills? How about guns, gun
>powder, bombs, nuclear/biological toxic waste, air polution, medical
>mishaps and drug deaths .... oh the list is quite long
the creationsit's argument is as follows:
-science is always wrong and can explain nothing
-science is always right so is dangerous
got that?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Hey idiot. Science causes the disease and now we have to depend on it
>for the cure.
lifespan under creationism: 40 years
under science: 80 years.
i guess a doubling of lifespan is just nothing to the fundamentalists
spintronic
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:33:59 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
.
> lifespan under creationism: 40 years
Actually its 3 score years + 10 = 70
Psalms 90:10
> under science: 80 years.
Actually in 2002 a U.K males was 76
And psalm 90:10 says the strong reach 4 score years = 80.
So all in all, science has done SQUAT.
> i guess a doubling of lifespan is just nothing to the fundamentalists
Only a stupid scientist could double a static number.
Ye Old One
>On Nov 22, 11:13 am, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:54:43 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>>
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >2 years ago, the Blue Brain project created a virtual rat cortex with
>> >55 million virtual neurons.
>>
>> >2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
>> >1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
>>
>> >That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
>> >600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
>> >brain) 4 years away.
>>
>> >Same again and we have 1.35404959 × 10^12 neurons or a computer
>>
>> >13.5404959 times more powerful than a human brain by the year 2013.
>>
>> Developing the hardware is the easy bit. Getting it to do something
>> will be much, much more difficult.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> --
>> Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
>
>Science cannot duplicate the complexity of an insect how could it ever
>duplicate the workings of the brain?
Easy, one step at a time.
It currently has reached the level of the cat - so it is already way
above both you and SpinToxic combined. One more step and it will be
better than all creationists combined.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
No, you are the sick joke.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Ye Old One
Oh! Like your mind then.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Ye Old One
>On Nov 22, 11:50 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:29:44 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
>> wrote in talk.origins:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 22, 11:13 am, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:54:43 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>>
>> >> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >2 years ago, the Blue Brain project created a virtual rat cortex with
>> >> >55 million virtual neurons.
>>
>> >> >2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
>> >> >1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
>>
>> >> >That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
>> >> >600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
>> >> >brain) 4 years away.
>>
>> >> >Same again and we have 1.35404959 × 10^12 neurons or a computer
>>
>> >> >13.5404959 times more powerful than a human brain by the year 2013.
>>
>> >> Developing the hardware is the easy bit. Getting it to do something
>> >> will be much, much more difficult.
>>
>> >> Steve
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
>>
>> >Science cannot duplicate the complexity of an insect how could it ever
>> >duplicate the workings of the brain?
>>
>> You are so lucky to live in a complex civilization that relies on
>> science to keep you alive as you choose to remain ignorant and foolish.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Hey idiot. Science causes the disease
Hohohohohoho!!!!! Thanks for that, a new stupidity to add to the list.
> and now we have to depend on it
>for the cure.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 23 Nov, 01:49, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:33:59 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>.
>.
>
>> lifespan under creationism: 40 years
>
>Actually its 3 score years + 10 = 70
>
>Psalms 90:10
unfortunately, the evidence is to the contrary. for almost 2000 years
under creationism, lifespan was about 40 years.
try again
>
>
>> under science: 80 years.
>
>Actually in 2002 a U.K males was 76
thanks for the confirmation
>
>And psalm 90:10 says the strong reach 4 score years = 80.
>
>So all in all, science has done SQUAT.
proof?
none. none at all
so how's the goat sacrifice going? you guys think ghosts are
responsible for weather and earthquakes
>
>> i guess a doubling of lifespan is just nothing to the fundamentalists
>
>Only a stupid scientist could double a static number.
guess he uses prayer instead of a scientist invented computer to post
to the net
Baron Bodissey
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:10:54 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that under
creationism the average life expectancy was 40 years while the average
life expectancy under science is nearly twice as long. I do not think
that the maximum human lifespan has increased dramatically since
Biblical times, only now many more people reach it (at least in
developed countries).
Baron Bodissey
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
– H. L. Mencken
AusShane
Really??
Only a few years ago we knew from census figures that the death rate
in childbirth was about 50% and that the death rate between birth and
5 years was about 50%. The mean age at death was 40 yrs and in some
populations 35yrs. Even today in Australia the aboriginal population
die on average 17 years before non Aboriginals - mostly due to lack of
health care (you know science stuff) Perhaps you would like to point
us to the biblical analysis - you know n=??, mean figures averages,
meta analysis??? rather than picking one number and using it as the
norm?
Are you not supposed to be cleverer than that??
Nashton
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:25:22 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
> group when s/he wrote:
>
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You are so lucky to live in a complex civilization that relies on
>>> science to keep you alive as you choose to remain ignorant and foolish.
>>>
>> Is this some kind of sick joke?
>
> No, you are the sick joke.
>
>
In a bad mood because you can't get those stains of the toilet bowl? Did
your boss get on your case?
Here's a joke for you:
"All modern drugs are derived from the ToE" and "Science is not a human
invention."
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:25:22 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> enriched this
>> group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> You are so lucky to live in a complex civilization that relies on
>>>> science to keep you alive as you choose to remain ignorant and foolish.
>>>>
>>> Is this some kind of sick joke?
>>
>> No, you are the sick joke.
>>
>>
>
>In a bad mood because you can't get those stains of the toilet bowl? Did
>your boss get on your case?
>
>Here's a joke for you:
>
>"All modern drugs are derived from the ToE" and
That has been exposed as one of your lies. Why do you keep repeating
it?
> "Science is not a human
>invention."
Correct, it is a human discovery.
spintronic
> On Nov 23, 12:10 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 Nov, 01:49, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:33:59 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> > .
> > .
>
> > > lifespan under creationism: 40 years
>
> > Actually its 3 score years + 10 = 70
>
> > Psalms 90:10
>
> > > under science: 80 years.
>
> > Actually in 2002 a U.K males was 76
>
> > And psalm 90:10 says the strong reach 4 score years = 80.
>
> > So all in all, science has done SQUAT.
>
> > > i guess a doubling of lifespan is just nothing to the fundamentalists
>
> > Only a stupid scientist could double a static number.
>
> Really??
>
> Only a few years ago we knew from census figures that the death rate
> in childbirth was about 50%
From Cerebral Venous Thrombosis, because *scientists* told women to
lie down for a week.
Clever advice that.
> and that the death rate between birth and 5 years was about 50%.
Which country? Which years?
And so what you are in fact saying, is that the average of 40 years
was brought so *low* as a result of such a mortality rate amongst
*CHILDREN* and *MOTHERS*??
Not very bright are you?
> The mean age at death was 40 yrs and in some populations 35yrs.
Well it would be, if someone is killing 50% of all the kids.
> Even today in Australia the aboriginal population die on average 17 years before non Aboriginals - mostly due to lack of
> health care (you know science stuff)
Or is it the genetic defects associated with being black?
> Perhaps you would like to point us to the biblical analysis - you know n=??, mean figures averages,
> meta analysis??? rather than picking one number and using it as the
> norm?
Julius Caesar Age 56, Cause of Death = Assasination.
Mark Antony Age 53, Cause of Death = execution
Ptolemy I Soter Age 84, Cause of death = Natural Causes.
Ptolemy II Philadelphus Age 63, Cause of Death = ??
You make it sound like people can't live long without modern
healthcare. It only *SOUNDS* that way.
> Are you not supposed to be cleverer than that??
My reputation precedes me I see.
spintronic
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:10:54 -0800 (PST), spintronic
.
> >> lifespan under creationism: 40 years
> >Actually its 3 score years + 10 = 70
> >Psalms 90:10
> unfortunately, the evidence is to the contrary.
No it isn't.
But you are quite willing to present your's.
> for almost 2000 years under creationism, lifespan was about 40 years.
Not very good with numbers I see?
Genesis: -1500 to 2009 = 2000.
Ya, that's clever.
No wonder your 80 years is cut in half.
> try again
I suggest you stop & just give up.
> >> under science: 80 years.
> >Actually in 2002 a U.K males was 76
> thanks for the confirmation
No problem. Now wheres your data claiming the death rate was 40 years
old, in say;
1500 AD in China?
> >And psalm 90:10 says the strong reach 4 score years = 80.
> >So all in all, science has done SQUAT.
> proof?
Your *scientific* numbers are incorrect.
> none. none at all
I know you haven't.
> so how's the goat sacrifice going?
Now well for the goat I'd say.
How's the animal testing going?
How many mice, rabbit's, & chimps, (plus all the other critters),
Have you sacrificed upon the alter of science this morning?
Hows the child sacrifices going?
Let me guess. More than the goats.
> you guys think ghosts are
> responsible for weather and earthquakes
Nar, you just made that up.
But then again lies are your only argument.
> >> i guess a doubling of lifespan is just nothing to the fundamentalists
> >Only a stupid scientist could double a static number.
> guess he uses prayer instead of a scientist invented computer to post
> to the net
**Stupid** scientists didn't build computers.
If they did, they would all run at half the speed claimed on the CPU.
Boikat
> > group when s/he wrote:
>
> >> Free Lunch wrote:
>
> >>> You are so lucky to live in a complex civilization that relies on
> >>> science to keep you alive as you choose to remain ignorant and foolish.
>
> >> Is this some kind of sick joke?
>
> > No, you are the sick joke.
>
> In a bad mood because you can't get those stains of the toilet bowl? Did
> your boss get on your case?
>
> Here's a joke for you:
>
> "All modern drugs are derived from the ToE" and "Science is not a human
> invention."
Here a few you must have missed;
Cambrian mammal = Trilobite.
"Kent Hovind was a *great scientist*, who made many *great scientific*
discoveries.
"The Theory of Ecolution is not scientific theory"
Wars have been fought because science dispelled some aspect of some
religion.
Hitler's understanding of the ToE was manifest in WWI.
There's a lot more, but you'll hae to get them from adman/All Drooling
I(diot).
Boikat
spintronic
.
.
> Hitler's understanding of the ToE was manifest in WWI.
Hitler was a NUT who played both hands.
1) He killed the Jews on religious grounds.
And
2) He killed the handicapped on evolutionary grounds.
With me being in catagory 1), and Boyprat being in catagory 2).
It's a good job none of us were around for that little party.
Boikat
> On 23 Nov, 14:12, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> .
> .
>
> > Hitler's understanding of the ToE was manifest in WWI.
>
> Hitler was a NUT who played both hands.
So, you think Hitler had something to do with the way WWI was a
manifestation of Hitler's understanding of the ToE, also?
>
> 1) He killed the Jews on religious grounds.
During WWI?
>
> And
>
> 2) He killed the handicapped on evolutionary grounds.
During WWI?
>
> With me being in catagory 1), and Boyprat being in catagory 2).
Your fantasies aside, this happened during WWI?
>
> It's a good job none of us were around for that little party.
So, you're as ignorant and idiotic as assmonkey? Or, are you so
fucked up at the moment that you can't tell the difference between
"WWI" and "WWII"?
Boikat
Kermit
> On Nov 22, 12:40 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:33:59 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
> > wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > >On Nov 22, 11:50 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:29:44 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
> > >> wrote in talk.origins:
>
> > >> >On Nov 22, 11:13 am, Stephen Wolstenholme <st...@tropheus.demon.co.uk>
> > >> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:54:43 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
> > >> >> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >2 years ago, the Blue Brain project created a virtual rat cortex with
> > >> >> >55 million virtual neurons.
>
> > >> >> >2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
> > >> >> >1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
>
> > >> >> >That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
> > >> >> >600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
> > >> >> >brain) 4 years away.
>
> > >> >> >Same again and we have 1.35404959 × 10^12 neurons or a computer
>
> > >> >> >13.5404959 times more powerful than a human brain by the year 2013.
>
> > >> >> Developing the hardware is the easy bit. Getting it to do something
> > >> >> will be much, much more difficult.
>
> > >> >> Steve
>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >> Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
>
> > >> >Science cannot duplicate the complexity of an insect how could it ever
> > >> >duplicate the workings of the brain?
>
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >for the cure.
>
> > How did science make you into an ignorance-worshipping fool
>
I understand that you do not like knowledge, and think that ignorance
is somehow better, but the evidence is against you.
>
> Shall we start with water, or chemical spills? How about guns, gun
> powder, bombs, nuclear/biological toxic waste, air polution, medical
> mishaps and drug deaths .... oh the list is quite long
It is not the fault of scientists that politicians or religious
leaders sometimes start wars.
As for toxic waste, it is science that has provided the information
for us to understand the consequences of pollution and resource
depletion for several generations. Cultures have in the past died
because they overextended themselves or used resources in a non-
sustainable manner (e.g. Easter Islanders, the Anasasi). Scientists
warn about these but people like you prefer to believe things which
give them warm fuzzy feelings rather than listen to uncomfortable
warnings from elitist eggheads.
And of course the medical culture makes mistakes, but it saves far
more lives than it takes by accident.
The success of humanity is a result of our developing technology. The
dangers of that same technology, the unintended and unexpected
consequences, are being ignored by those who prefer ignorance.
>
> You worship science and then call me "an ignorance-worshipping fool"?
I don't worship science. I haven't seen any poster here who does. How
would that work? I fail to see how Evangelical Christians, Hindus,
Buddhists, Jews, and atheists can all do the same science if it's a
religion or object of worship. If you inflate the term "religion"
enough to include everything that somebody somewhere values, then you
reduce your own religious fervor to the level of a football fan. Are
you sure you want to go there?
>
> heh.. very amusing.
Not really. You are working hard to destroy the dissemination of
knowledge and acting on reason and evidence. This process has dire
results, and we don't have much time to dawdle.
Kermit
TomS
<9ca17f86-6623-4ebb...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, Boikat
stated..."
>
>On Nov 23, 9:33=A0am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 Nov, 14:12, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> .
>> .
>>
>> > Hitler's understanding of the ToE was manifest in WWI.
>>
>> Hitler was a NUT who played both hands.
>
>So, you think Hitler had something to do with the way WWI was a
>manifestation of Hitler's understanding of the ToE, also?
>
>
>>
>> 1) He killed the Jews on religious grounds.
>
>During WWI?
>
>>
>> And
>>
>> 2) He killed the handicapped on evolutionary grounds.
>
>During WWI?
*If* that was on "evolutionary" grounds, it was *micro*evolution,
evolution within a "kind", "mankind". (Most definitely it was *not*
anything about macroevolutionary events like the origins of the
vertebrate eye.)
And if that was on evolutionary grounds, it was not about evolution
by "random variations" or "*natural* selection". If it was about
selection, it was *purposeful* selection.
>
>>
>> With me being in catagory 1), and Boyprat being in catagory 2).
>
>Your fantasies aside, this happened during WWI?
>
>>
>> It's a good job none of us were around for that little party.
>
>So, you're as ignorant and idiotic as assmonkey? Or, are you so
>fucked up at the moment that you can't tell the difference between
>"WWI" and "WWII"?
>
>Boikat
>
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
spintronic
> On Nov 23, 9:33 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
.
> > > Hitler's understanding of the ToE was manifest in WWI.
>
> > Hitler was a NUT who played both hands.
>
> So, you think <snip>
Do you see a reference to time there dear boyprat?
I don't.
bpuharic
>Actually, I think it would be more accurate to say that under
>creationism the average life expectancy was 40 years while the average
>life expectancy under science is nearly twice as long.
point well taken...thanks...
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 23 Nov, 03:08, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:10:54 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>>
>> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 23 Nov, 01:49, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:33:59 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> >.
>> >.
>>
>> >> lifespan under creationism: 40 years
>>
>> >Actually its 3 score years + 10 = 70
>>
>> >Psalms 90:10
>>
>> unfortunately, the evidence is to the contrary.
>
>No it doesn't.
>
>But you are quite willing to present your's.
here you go creationist. read it and weep for your failure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
>
>> for almost 2000 years under creationism, lifespan was about 40 years.
>
>Not very good with numbers I see?
>
>Genesis: 1500 BC - 2009 = 2000.
proof? none.
>
>Ya, that's clever.
>
>No wonder your 80 years is cut in half also.
>
>> try again
>
>I suggest you stop & just give up.
so you have an ancient myth. no proof...
does your mom still read you fairy tales?
>
>
>
>
>
>> >And psalm 90:10 says the strong reach 4 score years = 80.
>>
>> >So all in all, science has done SQUAT.
>>
>> proof?
>
>
>Your *scientific* numbers are incorrect.
i gave you the reference. pull out your hanky and start crying.
>
>
>
>> you guys think ghosts are
>> responsible for weather and earthquakes
>
>
>Nar, you just made that up.
>
>But then again lies are your only argument.
really? hmmm...so you think creationists 1000 years ago weren't
invoking demons?
hell i can read about 'em in the NT.
oh. i forgot you never read the bible.
yep you guys were explaining nature by demons. why not read carolly
erickson's 'the medieval vision'? that'll give you a good introduction
to how religion fucks up perception.
>
>
>
>> >> i guess a doubling of lifespan is just nothing to the fundamentalists
>>
>> >Only a stupid scientist could double a static number.
>>
>> guess he uses prayer instead of a scientist invented computer to post
>> to the net
>
>**Stupid** scientists didn't build computers.
>
>If they did, they would all run at half the speed claimed on the CPU.
?? i used to work for bell labs
and, yes, scientists did build computers.
creationists? reading chicken entrails for decision making...
http://www.rateitall.com/i-51766-entrail-reading.aspx
so why not tell us how your ghosts explain how computers work, m'kay?
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 23 Nov, 07:14, AusShane <quar...@live.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 12:10 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Only a few years ago we knew from census figures that the death rate
>> in childbirth was about 50%
>
>From Cerebral Venous Thrombosis, because *scientists* told women to
>lie down for a week.
uh...no. because doctors used to do autopsies with their bare hands
then go right to the delivery room
and creationists? they sacrificed goats to stop disease...while
drinking the very sewage that cause disease
life expectancy under creationists: about 40 years.
today? 80 years
>
>
>You make it sound like people can't live long without modern
>healthcare. It only *SOUNDS* that way.
>
>
>> Are you not supposed to be cleverer than that??
>
>
>My reputation precedes me I see.
here you go, creationist. this tells you why your ghost based view of
the world failed, for 2000 years, to stop disease:
Boikat
Yes, where I mentions assmonkey's claim about Hitler and WWI.
>
> I don't.
Because you can't read. I *was* referencing a time, specifically
*WWI*. Do you have a reading problem, or simply wanting to avoid
answering the question honestly?
Boikat
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> Hitler was a NUT who played both hands.
>
> 1) He killed the Jews on religious grounds.
>
>
> And
>
>
> 2) He killed the handicapped on evolutionary grounds.
>
>
> With me being in catagory 1), and Boyprat being in catagory 2).
>
>
> It's a good job none of us were around for that little party.
Let's be clear. Are you saying you're Jewish? Of course you know more
about your origins than I do, but I confess it would surprise me.
--
Mike.
Boikat
wrote:
If he is, he converted when he found out they were, and in some
backwards places still are, persecuted.
Boikat
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 23 Nov, 03:08, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:10:54 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>.
>.
>
>> >> lifespan under creationism: 40 years
>
>> >Actually its 3 score years + 10 = 70
>
>> >Psalms 90:10
>
>> unfortunately, the evidence is to the contrary.
>
>No it isn't.
>
>But you are quite willing to present your's.
OK here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
now, then, where's your data?
oh. you got none.
yeah i figured that. i'm sure i wont hear from you again on this...
>
>
>No problem. Now wheres your data claiming the death rate was 40 years
>old, in say;
>1500 AD in China?
AusShane
"> Which country? Which years?"
Here's a good start
http://family.jrank.org/pages/2797/infant-mortality.html
> "From Cerebral Venous Thrombosis, because *scientists* told women to
> lie down for a week."
Mostly from infection called puerperal fever - some wise person above
mentioned Semmelweiss - a very observant scientist who was ridiculed
for his views but in which evidence eventually proved his theory
correct.
Cerebral Venous thrombosis is a far rarer complication - and guess
what as empiric knowledge advances we change our thinking - its what
science is about.
" Well it would be, if someone is killing 50% of all the kids."
As above it was ignorance that allowed caused the death rates to be so
high.
"Or is it the genetic defects associated with being black?"
Leaving aside the racial slurs a report published in Australia this
year clearly points out that it is the fact Aboriginals do not receive
adequate health care for the hypertension diabetes and infections they
suffer from that contributes directly to the younger age at death.
The argument was about modern health care increasing life span and the
above is a good example - whether the disease is genetic or not its
the lack of treatment - and all the above diseases are successfully
treatable.
"> And so what you are in fact saying, is that the average of 40 years
> was brought so *low* as a result of such a mortality rate amongst
> *CHILDREN* and *MOTHERS*??
>
> Not very bright are you?"
As a background to the argument it is compelling evidence of the state
of health care in previous generations. You obviously missed the point
-
" Julius Caesar Age 56, Cause of Death = Assasination.
> Mark Antony Age 53, Cause of Death = execution
> Ptolemy I Soter Age 84, Cause of death = Natural Causes.
> Ptolemy II Philadelphus Age 63, Cause of Death = ??"
Hmm we now go from n=1 to n=4 very convincing statistics.
Try reading some of the more detailed (although incomplete) health
records from the people who were doing the work at the time.
"> You make it sound like people can't live long without modern
> healthcare. It only *SOUNDS* that way."
No its because the people who were there at the time left us records
that say so.
Dick C.
news:9af3472a-46a4-40c3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>
> Fools like you telling everyone science is sooooo good.
>
> Shall we start with water, or chemical spills? How about guns, gun
> powder, bombs, nuclear/biological toxic waste, air polution, medical
> mishaps and drug deaths .... oh the list is quite long
Water? How is that science's fault? However, chemical spills are not
the fault of science. They are the fault of improperly handled chemicals.
Usually due to carelesness or cheap business owners. Gunpowder came from
the chinese hundreds of years before modern science. The use of guns is
due to the development of weapons for war, which all too often is
inspired by religion. As far as toxic waste and air pollution goes,
science knows how to deal with the waste, it is the business owners,
politicians and often times the general public that refuses to deal
with it properly. Medical mishaps? How many die from medical mishaps
in any one year, and then compare it to the number of people kept alive
due to modern medicine. Drug deaths are not the fault of science, rather
the fault of the people who use and abuse drugs. Drugs that almost were
entirely developed without the use of science. Your list of foolish and
ignorant things to rant about is quite long. Your ability to present a
real argument is very limited.
>
> You worship science and then call me "an ignorance-worshipping fool"?
Well, we do not worship science, we do appreciate and understand it.
You, on the otherhand, are an ignorant fool who apparently blinded
himself to reality. And you seem to worship ignorance.
>
> heh.. very amusing.
Nah, just sad and pitiful.
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>Probably some new way to kill man and the earth even faster then it
>can now.
the creationist says science never works
except when it does.
seems he's confused himself
Eric Root
> "On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:42:13 -0800 (PST), in article
He thinks "WWII" is a new game console.
Eric Root
Baron Bodissey
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:43:25 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
>
>
Interesting that the five nations with the highest life expectancy all
have socialized medicine.
spintronic
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:00:59 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
>
>
>
>
> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 23 Nov, 03:08, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:10:54 -0800 (PST), spintronic
> >.
> >.
>
> >> >> lifespan under creationism: 40 years
>
> >> >Actually its 3 score years + 10 = 70
>
> >> >Psalms 90:10
>
> >> unfortunately, the evidence is to the contrary.
>
> >No it isn't.
>
> >But you are quite willing to present your's.
>
> OK here you go:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
.
> now, then, where's your data?
>
> oh. you got none.
>
> yeah i figured that. i'm sure i wont hear from you again on this...
Like most of your figures, their wrong.
I can manipulate any data set you offer up. E.G
*********************************************
Bronze age, Sweden[10] 40-60
Classical Greece[11] 20-30
Classical Rome[12] 20-30
Pre-Columbian North America[13] 25-30
Medieval Islamic Caliphate[14] 35+ The average lifespans of the elite
class were 59–84.3 years in the Middle East[15][16] and 69–75 in
Islamic Spain.[17]
Medieval Britain[18][19] 20-30
Early 20th Century[20][21] 30-45
Current world average[22] 66.57
************************************************
That tells me, science has just took us back to the bronze age.
spintronic
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:34:12 -0800 (PST), spintronic.
.
> >> Only a few years ago we knew from census figures that the death rate
> >> in childbirth was about 50%
> >From Cerebral Venous Thrombosis, because *scientists* told women to
> >lie down for a week.
> uh...no. because doctors used to do autopsies with their bare hands
> then go right to the delivery room
Funny, we never had that problem.
Numbers 19:11
Leviticus 11:24-25
Must be why Psalm says we live to 80 years old.
> and creationists? they sacrificed goats to stop disease...while
> drinking the very sewage that cause disease
We dig holes, not shit wells.
The only modern sacrifice I know of, are animal's sacrificed in labs.
Or the babies sacrificed in clinics.
> life expectancy under creationists: about 40 years.
Life expectancy of a fetus under science 24 weeks.
We don't have that problem either.
> today? 80 years
Funny, Psalm says that too.
> >You make it sound like people can't live long without modern
> >healthcare. It only *SOUNDS* that way.
> >> Are you not supposed to be cleverer than that??
> >My reputation precedes me I see.
> here you go, creationist. this tells you why your ghost based view of
> the world failed, for 2000 years, to stop disease:
I don't believe in ghosts.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Yiptedoo.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 23 Nov, 21:28, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:00:59 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> yeah i figured that. i'm sure i wont hear from you again on this...
>
>Like most of your figures, their wrong.
>
>
>I can manipulate any data set you offer up. E.G
>
>*********************************************
>Bronze age, Sweden[10] 40-60
>Classical Greece[11] 20-30
>Classical Rome[12] 20-30
>Pre-Columbian North America[13] 25-30
>Medieval Islamic Caliphate[14] 35+ The average lifespans of the elite
>class were 59–84.3 years in the Middle East[15][16] and 69–75 in
>Islamic Spain.[17]
>Medieval Britain[18][19] 20-30
>Early 20th Century[20][21] 30-45
>Current world average[22] 66.57
>************************************************
>
>That tells me, science has just took us back to the bronze age.
really? the current life expectancy in the west is about 80 years.
since when did that become the 20-30 years of creationist britain or
the 45 years of creationist america?
where you creationists learn to read?
oh. you don't learn.
creationism kills
>
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 23 Nov, 18:46, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:34:12 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>.
>.
>
>> >> Only a few years ago we knew from census figures that the death rate
>> >> in childbirth was about 50%
>>
>> >From Cerebral Venous Thrombosis, because *scientists* told women to
>> >lie down for a week.
>>
>> uh...no. because doctors used to do autopsies with their bare hands
>> then go right to the delivery room
>
>Funny, we never had that problem.
>
>Numbers 19:11
>Leviticus 11:24-25
>
>Guess that's why we live so long.
yeah. i guess if you're a creationist, it seems a 40 year life
expectancy is longer than the current 80 years under science
and, unlike creationists, we found out what was killing women
creationists just sacrifice a goat, pray to the deity or ghost of the
say and go on drinking sewage
>
>
>> and creationists? they sacrificed goats to stop disease...while
>> drinking the very sewage that cause disease
>
>
>
>The only modern sacrifice I know of, are animal's sacrificed in labs.
>
>Or the babies sacrificed in clinics.
i was a volunteer guard at an abortion clinic. never saw a single baby
sacrificed
and it's irrelevant anyhow. i DID see prolife terrorists, however.
and you creationists seem to love your ghost view of the world. what
ghost do you pray to to enable you to post to the web?
>
>
>> life expectancy under creationists: about 40 years.
>
>Life expectancy of a fetus under science 24 weeks.
irrelevant
this is called 'goalpost moving'. he just got his ass stomped so now
he wants to talk abortion
must be humiliating to be so transparent.
>>
>> here you go, creationist. this tells you why your ghost based view of
>> the world failed, for 2000 years, to stop disease:
>
>
>I don't believe in ghosts.
sure you do. when asked what causes disease, you say 'ghosts and
demons''
since life expectancy under creationism was about 40 years, how'd that
work out for you guys?
>
>
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
>
>Yiptedoo.
yeah, it's data.
now pick your ass up off the ground and try to learn. always glad to
help you
Nick Keighley
> How did science make you into an ignorance-worshipping fool?
too much lead based paint at the orphanage?
spintronic
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
R2DTARD incognito.
spintronic
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:10:00 -0800 (PST), spintronic
>
>
>
>
>
> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 23 Nov, 18:46, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:34:12 -0800 (PST), spintronic
> >.
> >.
>
> >> >> Only a few years ago we knew from census figures that the death rate
> >> >> in childbirth was about 50%
>
> >> >From Cerebral Venous Thrombosis, because *scientists* told women to
> >> >lie down for a week.
>
> >> uh...no. because doctors used to do autopsies with their bare hands
> >> then go right to the delivery room
>
> >Funny, we never had that problem.
>
> >Numbers 19:11
> >Leviticus 11:24-25
>
> >Guess that's why we live so long.
>
> yeah. i guess if you're a creationist, it seems a 40 year life
> expectancy is longer than the current 80 years under science
>
> and, unlike creationists, we found out what was killing women
>
> creationists just sacrifice a goat, pray to the deity or ghost of the
> say and go on drinking sewage
>
>
>
> >> and creationists? they sacrificed goats to stop disease...while
> >> drinking the very sewage that cause disease
.
> >The only modern sacrifice I know of, are animal's sacrificed in labs.
>
> >Or the babies sacrificed in clinics.
>
> i was a volunteer guard at an abortion clinic. never saw a single baby
> sacrificed
You wouldn't, that's above your paygrade.
Wonder why they need guards?
> and it's irrelevant anyhow.
No it's not.
> i DID see prolife terrorists, however.
On the nightwatch?
Do fat old men get to play NSA whilst asleep on the job these days?
> >> life expectancy under creationists: about 40 years.
>
> >Life expectancy of a fetus under science 24 weeks.
>
> irrelevant
Why?
> this is called 'goalpost moving'.
Glad you admit it.
> >> here you go, creationist. this tells you why your ghost based view of
> >> the world failed, for 2000 years, to stop disease:
>
> >I don't believe in ghosts.
>
> sure you do.
No honest, when I say;
"I...".
That means it's me who gets to choose.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> i was a volunteer guard at an abortion clinic. never saw a single baby
>> sacrificed
>
>
>You wouldn't, that's above your paygrade.
try making sense sometime. it would change your world.
>
>Wonder why they need guards?
because of terrorists. like the ones you support
>
>> and it's irrelevant anyhow.
>
>No it's not.
>
>> i DID see prolife terrorists, however.
>
>
>On the nightwatch?
no. after they got out of prison
>
>Do fat old men get to play NSA whilst asleep on the job these days?
yeah, it figures. you guys love terrorism. it's the only way you get
your message across
>
>
>> >> life expectancy under creationists: about 40 years.
>>
>> >Life expectancy of a fetus under science 24 weeks.
>>
>> irrelevant
>
>Why?
because it has zip to do with TO.
>
>
>> this is called 'goalpost moving'.
>
>
>Glad you admit it.
sure i admit you move the goalposts. comes from lack of thinking
skills
>
>
>
>
>> >> here you go, creationist. this tells you why your ghost based view of
>> >> the world failed, for 2000 years, to stop disease:
>>
>> >I don't believe in ghosts.
>>
>> sure you do.
>
>
>No honest, when I say;
>
>"I...".
>
>That means it's me who gets to choose.
except you keep telling us ghosts do stuff like cause speciation.
can't have it both ways, dude
>
spintronic
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:14:46 -0800 (PST), spintronic
.
> >> >I don't believe in ghosts.
>
> >> sure you do.
>
> >No honest, when I say;
>
> >"I...".
>
> >That means it's me who gets to choose.
>
> except you keep telling us ghosts do stuff like cause speciation.
Guess you'll have to quote me.
Nick Keighley
> <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> life expectancy under creationists: about 40 years.
>
> >Life expectancy of a fetus under science 24 weeks.
what was the life expectancy of a new born baby pre-scientific
medicine?
spintronic
wrote:.
.
> > >> life expectancy under creationists: about 40 years.
>
> > >Life expectancy of a fetus under science 24 weeks.
>
> what was the life expectancy of a new born baby pre-scientific
> medicine?
More than 24 weeks.
bpuharic
you're a creationist. you believe in ghost-magic by definition.
QED
fuller...@hotmail.com
> 2 years ago, the Blue Brain project created a virtual rat cortex with
> 55 million virtual neurons.
>
> 2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
> 1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
>
> That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
> 600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
> brain) 4 years away.
>
>
> Same again and we have 1.35404959 � 10^12 neurons or a computer
>
> 13.5404959 times more powerful than a human brain by the year 2013.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0031UNWWE/
Cylon soldiers of the One True God.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004H15NBY/ref=dv_dp_ep19
RSNorman
wrote:
>On Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:54:43 AM UTC-6, spintronic wrote:
many years old for our reconsideration?
Robert Carnegie
hyperlinks to Amazon, in case the spammer benefits.
Rolf
<fuller...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:1729bace-dc34-450e...@googlegroups.com...
>> 2 years ago, the Blue Brain project created a virtual rat cortex with
>> 55 million virtual neurons.
>>
>> 2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
>> 1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
>>
>> That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
>> 600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
>> brain) 4 years away.
>>
it. I can dream, will the artificial thing, will that thing be able to do
that? Hve meaningful dreams, emotions?
It might be useful for robots, but otherwise I suggest we might as well
spend the dough more visely.There already are too many bodies with human
brains on the planet.
Glenn
"Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:lv70vc$ukl$1...@news.albasani.net...
> <fuller...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:1729bace-dc34-450e...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:54:43 AM UTC-6, spintronic wrote:
>>> 2 years ago, the Blue Brain project created a virtual rat cortex with
>>> 55 million virtual neurons.
>>>
>>> 2 years later they simulate a cortex more powerful than a cats with
>>> 1.6 Billion neurons & 9 trillion synaptic pathways.
>>>
>>> That's a 2909.09091% increase. If we plot the same again, we have 1
>>> 600 000 000 * (2 909.09091%) = 46 545 454 560 neurons, (Half a human
>>> brain) 4 years away.
>>>
>
> I already have one. Human brain, that is. I love it. doubt they can match
> it. I can dream, will the artificial thing, will that thing be able to do
> that? Hve meaningful dreams, emotions?
>
> It might be useful for robots, but otherwise I suggest we might as well
> spend the dough more visely.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
he cited, which matured last year.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
RSNorman
wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:00:11 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
><r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 20:36:53 -0700 (PDT), fuller...@hotmail.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:54:43 AM UTC-6, spintronic wrote:
>>
>>Is there some warp or wormhole in space-time that dredges up material
>>many years old for our reconsideration?
>
>I believe it was due to the prediction by spintronic which
>he cited, which matured last year.
seriously.
eridanus
> On Nov 22, 12:40�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:33:59 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com>
> > wrote in talk.origins:
> >
> >
> > >Hey idiot. Science causes the disease and now we have to depend on it
> > >for the cure.
> > How did science make you into an ignorance-worshipping fool
>
>
> Shall we start with water, or chemical spills? How about guns, gun
> powder, bombs, nuclear/biological toxic waste, air polution, medical
> mishaps and drug deaths .... oh the list is quite long
Eri
>
> You worship science and then call me "an ignorance-worshipping fool"?
>
Bob Casanova
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
>On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:44:02 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 09:00:11 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
>><r_s_n...@comcast.net>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 20:36:53 -0700 (PDT), fuller...@hotmail.com
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:54:43 AM UTC-6, spintronic wrote:
>>>
>>>Is there some warp or wormhole in space-time that dredges up material
>>>many years old for our reconsideration?
>>
>>I believe it was due to the prediction by spintronic which
>>he cited, which matured last year.
>
>That is even worse. It means that somebody actually took spinny
>seriously.
passer...@gmail.com
Ask Google a question lately, it understands better than a person already.