29 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonkelly?
“...You have never seen me say without complete knowledge there is no way you
could to SEE a design flaw. I have pointed out in earlier posts how people could
SEE design flaws, it is not something I have said we could not do....” (my emphasise)
What do you mean by “SEE” design flaws in the above?
Do you mean merely “perceive” regardless of w ...[text shortened]... topping us from CORRECTLY and rationally identifying a flaw in the anatomy of a giraffe's neck?
30 Aug 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe when God designed life that change was a built in feature, but it was
Kelly,
You have stated that you accept some amount of evolution. I believe you have stated before that you accept that all breeds of domestic dogs are related. So the poodle is related to the sausage dog, the grey hound and the great dane.
So if there was a breed of dog, with an unusually long neck, and that resulted in some rather odd wiring of the ner ...[text shortened]... , would that be Gods fault? Would it be a design flaw, or just a result of our breeding program?
limited.
Kelly
30 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI've answered this question several times and ways, you I guess don't like the
“...You have never seen me say without complete knowledge there is no way you
could to SEE a design flaw. I have pointed out in earlier posts how people could
SEE design flaws, it is not something I have said we could not do....” (my emphasise)
What do you mean by “SEE” design flaws in the above?
Do you mean merely “perceive” regardless of w ...[text shortened]... topping us from CORRECTLY and rationally identifying a flaw in the anatomy of a giraffe's neck?
answer so you reword your question and ask again. The answer remains the same,
if you don't know why or for what reason something was done, it is unlikely you do
have the knowledge to see a design flaw in a CPU. I'll even go beyond that, even
if you do have the knowledge on what is supposed to happen and why, you may
not understand the root cause of the issues without a battery of tests and study.
With the CPU the design issues are very complex and a lot of effort is applied to
the CPU before they hit market, yet you say you can spot a design flaw in them. I
believe you can find something wrong, but would the root cause be a design error
over looked in both the CPU maker or all the various companies that built their
systems to work with the CPU like motherboard venders or Software companies?
I would say no you do not have the ability to see an error and know the root cause
is design flaw within the CPU. Complete knownledge not required, but you need
to know quite a few things.
Kelly
31 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJay“…The answer remains the same,
I've answered this question several times and ways, you I guess don't like the
answer so you reword your question and ask again. The answer remains the same,
if you don't know why or for what reason something was done, it is unlikely you do
have the knowledge to see a design flaw in a CPU. I'll even go beyond that, even
if you do have the knowledge on w ...[text shortened]... the CPU. Complete knownledge not required, but you need
to know quite a few things.
Kelly
if you don't know why or for what reason something was done, it is UNLIKELY you do
have the knowledge to see a design flaw in a CPU….” (my emphasis)
-this doesn’t answer my question (and neither does any of your previous posts):
-where did I ask how UNLIKELY or LIKELY a correct identification of a flaw in a CPU was?
What I asked is simply is it POSSIBLE to correctly identify such a flaw –that is all!
But again you avoid my question by making out it is asking something else.
Reminder of my question but modified with new emphasis:
Is it POSSIBE (and that is POSSIBLE and NOT “LIKELY” –it may or may not be “LIKELY&rdquo😉 to CORRECTLY and rationally IDENTIFY ( and that is IDENTIFY and NOT “SEE” or merely “perceive” ) a hypothetical obvious design flaw in a CPU without complete knowledge of the CPU?
I am unconcerned here how “LIKELY” it is in a particular case because that is not relevant to the question above because that is NOT what the question asks.
If you answer “yes” to the above then that should show you your flaw.
“..Complete knownledge NOT required, but you need
to know quite a few things…”
-so why cannot we know “quite a few things” about a giraffe’s neck to possibly correctly identify a flaw and WITHOUT complete knowledge of the neck?
31 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"I would say no you do not have the ability to see an error and know the root cause
“…The answer remains the same,
if you don't know why or for what reason something was done, it is UNLIKELY you do
have the knowledge to see a design flaw in a CPU….” (my emphasis)
-this doesn’t answer my question (and neither does any of your previous posts):
-where did I ask how UNLIKELY or LIKELY a correct identification of a flaw in a CPU ...[text shortened]... iraffe’s neck to possibly correctly identify a flaw and WITHOUT complete knowledge of the neck?
is design flaw within the CPU. Complete knowledge not required, but you need
to know quite a few things."
It seems your question was answered. You may not like the answer, but that is an answer. Perhaps Kelly edited this later. If that is not the case though, it's not that hard to see Kelly answered with a 'no'. I would have to agree with Kelly. If the CPU was working correctly as it was designed to, how would you be able to point out a design flaw (lacking knowledge of the CPU)?
31 Aug 10
Originally posted by gtbiking4lifeMore importantly, how would you know what it was designed to do?
It seems your question was answered. You may not like the answer, but that is an answer. Perhaps Kelly edited this later. If that is not the case though, it's not that hard to see Kelly answered with a 'no'. I would have to agree with Kelly. If the CPU was working correctly as it was designed to, how would you be able to point out a design flaw (lacking knowledge of the CPU)?
You can never be sure something is a design flaw, but you can be fairly confident.
An example was already given of a wire that was longer than necessary and thus results loss of power and unnecessary heating. Unless you can see a reason why such a wire would be required, the best explanation is that it is a design flaw. Even rudimentary knowledge of CPUs would lead you to that conclusion. You cannot be certain, but then neither can someone with greater knowledge than yourself. Only someone who knows what the designer was thinking can really be sure.
But Kelly is arguing that:
a) knowing what the designer was thinking is not required.
b) having a minimum level of knowledge is required.
c) the minimum level of knowledge is significant - in the case of life, prior expertise at designing life must be demonstrated.
His argument is not logical but is fine tuned to try and exclude us.
31 Aug 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFine I'm done, you think you can see a design flaw in a CPU by just looking at it
“…The answer remains the same,
if you don't know why or for what reason something was done, it is UNLIKELY you do
have the knowledge to see a design flaw in a CPU….” (my emphasis)
-this doesn’t answer my question (and neither does any of your previous posts):
-where did I ask how UNLIKELY or LIKELY a correct identification of a flaw in a CPU ...[text shortened]... iraffe’s neck to possibly correctly identify a flaw and WITHOUT complete knowledge of the neck?
by all means live with that belief.
Kelly
31 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75You completely missed the point of my argument. I wasn't comparing planes with human beings, I was comparing knowledge of evolution with aerodynamics.
Exactly about the airplane. A man has to step in and adjust the design. It doesn't do it on it's own. No life form can adjust itself to the point of becoming a totally new species.
Planes could fly for over 100 years so basic aerodynamics knowledge allowed for that back then. Since then planes have become faster and more efficient due to new discoveries.
Likewise knowledge of evolution by natural selection hasn't changed on a basic level for around 150 years, but each discovery has confirmed and improved the understanding of evolution. Not caused scientists to change it all as you claim.
31 Aug 10
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIt isn’t merely a “belief” but based on reason. Actually, I know I personally CAN identify a flaw in a CPU just by looking at it! -providing it is a sufficiently silly one that is; I have done an actual university course in microprocessors and got a good pass and, although I am not an expert, I know enough to be able to easily spot a very silly flaw –like the unnecessarily long nerve in the giraffe’s neck (and you don’t even have to be an expert in anatomy to spot that one! )
Fine I'm done, you think you can see a design flaw in a CPU by just looking at it
by all means live with that belief.
Kelly
31 Aug 10
5 edits
Originally posted by gtbiking4life“…It seems your question was answered….”
[b]"I would say no you do not have the ability to see an error and know the root cause
is design flaw within the CPU. Complete knowledge not required, but you need
to know quite a few things."
It seems your question was answered. You may not like the answer, but that is an answer. Perhaps Kelly edited this later. If that is not the case though signed to, how would you be able to point out a design flaw (lacking knowledge of the CPU)?[/b]
Yes he apparently answered it –after apparently giving the exact opposite answer! -and NEVER with a simple “yes” or “no” –that’s why I am not satisfied -I am left unclear what his real answer is. He also clearly doesn’t accept this answer because he backtracks by saying things like:
“…if you don't know why or for what reason something was done, it is UNLIKELY you do
have the knowledge to see a design flaw in a CPU….”
And so I pointed out the question was NOT is it “LIKELY” but is it “possible”.
Why cannot he just answer “yes”? –even if it is a “yes” with “yes, but….”?
And, if you read on the bottom of page 7, he says:
“…simply shows if you don't grasp what EVERYTHING is there for and why! Without
that understanding and information you could NOT tell me what is a flaw because
you don't understand the meaning behind it.
Kelly…” (my emphasis)
Which directly contradicts what he said just slightly later and clearly implies he would answer that question with “no”.
So what is his answer? “yes” or “no”? we may never know for sure but, actually, I am guessing here that he finally realises the answer is simply “yes” –he just won’t give a simple “yes” without trying to qualify it with something to make out he was right all the long –best for me to just leave it at that I think.
01 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt seems to be a perfectly fine 'no' answer to me. I didn't get any hidden meanings. It seems to me you just wanted Kelly to answer 'yes' to your question. From what I gather, you are simply stating
“…It seems your question was answered….”
Yes he apparently answered it –after apparently giving the exact opposite answer! -and NEVER with a simple “yes” or “no” –that’s why I am not satisfied -I am left unclear what his real answer is. He also clearly doesn’t accept this answer because he backtracks by saying things like:
“…if you don't know wh ...[text shortened]... omething to make out he was right all the long –best for me to just leave it at that I think.
"Kelly didn't give you the answer you wanted so Kelly didn't answer the question."
Just my 2 cents, at least this is the way it came across and still does. We just see it differently I guess.
01 Sep 10
Originally posted by gtbiking4life“…It seems to be a perfectly fine 'no' answer to me….”
It seems to be a perfectly fine 'no' answer to me. I didn't get any hidden meanings. It seems to me you just wanted Kelly to answer 'yes' to your question. From what I gather, you are simply stating
"Kelly didn't give you the answer [b]you wanted so Kelly didn't answer the question."
Just my 2 cents, at least this is the way it came across and still does. We just see it differently I guess.[/b]
Actually, he implied the answer was “no” in his earlier posts but “yes” in the latter posts.
-and “no” is not a fine answer! –it is absurd!
Reminder of my question:
Is it possible to CORRECTLY and rationally IDENTIFY ( and that is IDENTIFY and NOT “SEE” or merely “perceive” ) a hypothetical obvious design flaw in a CPU without complete knowledge of the CPU?
“…I didn't get any hidden meanings….”
But do you see the contradiction of having both the answer of “yes” and “no” to that question?
“…It seems to me you just wanted Kelly to answer 'yes' to your question….”
Correct –and he appeared to –after apparently doing the opposite. –so I DID get what I want –sort of 😕
-Not sure if he meant it –actually, he implied he didn’t with his next post which said:
“…Fine I'm done, you think you can see a design flaw in a CPU by just looking at it
by all means live with that belief.
Kelly…”
Surely he implies here that I am wrong in assuming the answer to that question is “yes” which clearly implies he thinks the answer is “no”! –this is straight after clearly implying the answer is “yes” with:
“..Complete knowledge not required….”
But only some time after implying “no” on page 7 with:
“…simply shows if you don't grasp what EVERYTHING is there for and why! Without
that understanding and information you could NOT tell me what is a flaw because
you don't understand the meaning behind it.
Kelly…” (my emphasis)
So he DID answer the question! And many times! BUT, and here’s the catch, he often implied the answer “no” AND often implied the answer “yes”! so which is it?
–but I suppose I just have to be satisfied with the occasional correct answer to that question he gives.
“…Kelly didn't give you the answer you wanted so…”
Actually, he did! After he didn’t! I want the answer to be “yes”.
01 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt never seemed to me Kelly ever implied 'Yes'. That is only what you wanted to see. Kelly's answer was 'no' and always has been. Look at it this way. Instead of answering 'yes. because' as you wanted, Kelly answered 'no, because'. I am baffled by your confusion personally.
“…It seems to be a perfectly fine 'no' answer to me….”
Actually, he implied the answer was “no” in his earlier posts but “yes” in the latter posts.
-and “no” is not a fine answer! –it is absurd!
Reminder of my question:
Is it possible to CORRECTLY and rationally IDENTIFY ( and that is IDENTIFY and NOT “SEE” or merely “perceive” ) a hypothet ...[text shortened]... er you wanted so…”
Actually, he did! After he didn’t! I want the answer to be “yes”.
02 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by gtbiking4life“…It never seemed to me Kelly ever implied 'Yes'….”
It never seemed to me Kelly ever implied 'Yes'. That is only what you wanted to see. Kelly's answer was 'no' and always has been. Look at it this way. Instead of answering 'yes. because' as you wanted, Kelly answered 'no, because'. I am baffled by your confusion personally.
Look at page 8 third post down:
Kelly responds to:
“…Originally posted by twhitehead
You are essentially claiming that without absolutely complete knowledge, nobody can ever spot a flaw. …”
With:
“…I also am NOT claiming 'without absolute' knowledge either!...” (my emphasis)
How does the “ am NOT claiming 'without absolute' knowledge” in the above fail to imply a “yes” answer to the basic question of is it possible to identify an obvious design flaw without complete knowledge?
I DO want a “yes” answer but am I seeing a “yes” answer here BECAUSE I WANT to see it here as you claim?
Maybe you didn’t see that post.
I can point to several other posts where he clearly implied a “yes” answer to the above as well as others where he clearly implies “no”.