Jamest, I offer you serious discussion

[pErvinalia]

You see, I'm a beer drinker. I more in touch with the common man. In fact, we talk about algorithms at the pub all the time!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

You still don't understand set-theory. Come on Mr Master-debater, prove how that quote means what you think it means. Stop declaring bald assertions like I'm a "shit debater" or this definition is "better" than another. Show your working.

You lost the argument when the only way you could dispute my claim that "algorithm" was an inappropriate term was by diving into semantics. I couldn't care less what you think an algorithm is or what you would like it to be. It is a well-defined concept and all the definitions I have been able to find agree with my interpretation.

And what are you blathering on about set theory for? Christ on a bike, you're worse than Blind Groper sometimes.

[Svartalf]

I am a landlord, actually. My tenant pays on time, so I'm not bitter at all...

Rent-seeking capitalist parasite!!

Yeah, so what? Worse than that, I use that paragon of parasites, a real estate agent, to manage my rents for me, as I can't oversee the place from 500 km away.

[jamest]

I honestly don't think that I can continue to have a serious discussion with someone who even fails to acknowledge his continued abuse of a concept (algorithm) evidently understood by everyone to exclude the laws of physics [unless we invoke God]. Rev seems more intent on saving his own ass than in being sincere, whatever the cost to his credibility. Fuck that.

On the plus side, rarely (if ever) have I experienced the level of support for an argument/point than I have here. People don't generally agree with me, in principle. So, genuinely, I applaud those of you who have kicked Rev in the bollocks/fanny.

[pErvinalia]

You still don't understand set-theory. Come on Mr Master-debater, prove how that quote means what you think it means. Stop declaring bald assertions like I'm a "shit debater" or this definition is "better" than another. Show your working.

You lost the argument when the only way you could dispute my claim that "algorithm" was an inappropriate term was by diving into semantics.

You asked for a reference, I gave you one. What are you on about?

I couldn't care less what you think an algorithm is or what you would like it to be. It is a well-defined concept and all the definitions I have been able to find agree with my interpretation.

It's not solely what I think it is. I gave you a quote from the most common source on the internet.

And what are you blathering on about set theory for? Christ on a bike, you're worse than Blind Groper sometimes.

Because it explains how you are wrong about your interpretation of the quote from wiki. The bit in quotation marks is the full set, and the reference to computer programs is a subset of the whole. You are acting like it's the full set. C'mon, you know enough about maths to know this. Stop playing dumb.

[pErvinalia]

I am a landlord, actually. My tenant pays on time, so I'm not bitter at all...

Rent-seeking capitalist parasite!!

Yeah, so what? Worse than that, I use that paragon of parasites, a real estate agent, to manage my rents for me, as I can't oversee the place from 500 km away.

Capitalist running-dog!!

[jamest]

You're still at it! I asked you to explain something using a language which excludes the necessity of an intelligent agent. You failed. Admit it.

[pErvinalia]

I honestly don't think that I can continue to have a serious discussion with someone who even fails to acknowledge his continued abuse of a concept (algorithm) evidently understood by everyone to exclude the laws of physics [unless we invoke God]. Rev seems more intent on saving his own ass than in being sincere, whatever the cost to his credibility. Fuck that.

I've provided a quote from the most common source on the internet to back me up. FFS.

On the plus side, rarely (if ever) have I experienced the level of support for an argument/point than I have here. People don't generally agree with me, in principle. So, genuinely, I applaud those of you who have kicked Rev in the bollocks/fanny.

You can't be serious? They may be supporting you in your exclusive interpretation of algorithm, but you actual argument is laughable, and I can assure you they don't agree with that. Like I said, the idea that you can debunk a phenomenon via arbitrary interpretations of man-made terms, is utterly idiotic. And if this is what classes as "serious" for you, then you are way way out of your depth.

[pErvinalia]

You're still at it! I asked you to explain something using a language which excludes the necessity of an intelligent agent. You failed. Admit it.

I didn't fail, as the quote I provided shows.

And again, how is it you think this is a serious investigation into a phenomenon?!?

[jamest]

I honestly don't think that I can continue to have a serious discussion with someone who even fails to acknowledge his continued abuse of a concept (algorithm) evidently understood by everyone to exclude the laws of physics [unless we invoke God]. Rev seems more intent on saving his own ass than in being sincere, whatever the cost to his credibility. Fuck that.

I've provided a quote from the most common source on the internet to back me up. FFS.

You haven't provided a source which includes the laws of physics as an algorithm that does not undermine the totality of that source's definition as a whole. You've fished for a snippet from one source which - ignoring everything else the source states - might support your bollocks.

On the plus side, rarely (if ever) have I experienced the level of support for an argument/point than I have here. People don't generally agree with me, in principle. So, genuinely, I applaud those of you who have kicked Rev in the bollocks/fanny.

You can't be serious? They may be supporting you in your exclusive interpretation of algorithm, but you actual argument is laughable,

I haven't presented any other argument/point than the one about algorithms. Wtf else are you talking about? My theism as a whole? How could I be referencing that when some/most of the people here aren't even aware of that? Get a grip, squire. If you want to take me on then you're going to have to up your standards. What I've seen here has been dire.

and I can assure you they don't agree with that.

In principle, yes. But they don't have sufficient/any knowledge of my philosophy, so how could they [in principle] disagree?

Like I said, the idea that you can debunk a phenomenon via arbitrary interpretations of man-made terms, is utterly idiotic.

I haven't claimed to have debunked it. I've asked you to explain a specific phenomenon in terms which excludes the necessity for ID. You've obviously failed to comply.

And if this is what classes as "serious" for you, then you are way way out of your depth.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I honestly don't think that I can continue to have a serious discussion with someone who even fails to acknowledge his continued abuse of a concept (algorithm) evidently understood by everyone to exclude the laws of physics [unless we invoke God]. Rev seems more intent on saving his own ass than in being sincere, whatever the cost to his credibility. Fuck that.

On the plus side, rarely (if ever) have I experienced the level of support for an argument/point than I have here. People don't generally agree with me, in principle. So, genuinely, I applaud those of you who have kicked Rev in the bollocks/fanny.

jamest,

I think it only fair to point out that I wasn't agreeing with anything you have posted in this thread other than the single point that Rev chose completely the wrong word when he selected "algorithm". That he refuses to acknowledge that fact may give you a clue as to his pig-headedness and whether it would be worth your while trying to debate anything with him..

[jamest]

I honestly don't think that I can continue to have a serious discussion with someone who even fails to acknowledge his continued abuse of a concept (algorithm) evidently understood by everyone to exclude the laws of physics [unless we invoke God]. Rev seems more intent on saving his own ass than in being sincere, whatever the cost to his credibility. Fuck that.

On the plus side, rarely (if ever) have I experienced the level of support for an argument/point than I have here. People don't generally agree with me, in principle. So, genuinely, I applaud those of you who have kicked Rev in the bollocks/fanny.

jamest,

I think it only fair to point out that I wasn't agreeing with anything you have posted in this thread other than the single point that Rev chose completely the wrong word when he selected "algorithm". That he refuses to acknowledge that fact may give you a clue as to his pig-headedness and whether it would be worth your while trying to debate anything with him..

Don't worry, I wasn't implying that you'd ordered a robe and a pair of sandals. Though I suspect that this might be a good image for you.

[pErvinalia]

I honestly don't think that I can continue to have a serious discussion with someone who even fails to acknowledge his continued abuse of a concept (algorithm) evidently understood by everyone to exclude the laws of physics [unless we invoke God]. Rev seems more intent on saving his own ass than in being sincere, whatever the cost to his credibility. Fuck that.

On the plus side, rarely (if ever) have I experienced the level of support for an argument/point than I have here. People don't generally agree with me, in principle. So, genuinely, I applaud those of you who have kicked Rev in the bollocks/fanny.

jamest,

I think it only fair to point out that I wasn't agreeing with anything you have posted in this thread other than the single point that Rev chose completely the wrong word when he selected "algorithm". That he refuses to acknowledge that fact may give you a clue as to his pig-headedness and whether it would be worth your while trying to debate anything with him..

Stop with the cheap rhetoric, ffs. If you can't address my points directly, then why not go do what you do best - have a wank?

This is simple. You and jamest have a particular understanding of "algorithm", one which I know well about being a computer programmer, and you believe this is the only definition of algorithm. You are wrong, as the quote shows. As I have said repeatedly, a point you haven't addressed, you being incredulous isn't a refutation of everything. If I'm such a shit debater you should be able to easily refute this logic, instead of making snide rhetorical rejoinders.

[pErvinalia]

I honestly don't think that I can continue to have a serious discussion with someone who even fails to acknowledge his continued abuse of a concept (algorithm) evidently understood by everyone to exclude the laws of physics [unless we invoke God]. Rev seems more intent on saving his own ass than in being sincere, whatever the cost to his credibility. Fuck that.

I've provided a quote from the most common source on the internet to back me up. FFS.

You haven't provided a source which includes the laws of physics as an algorithm that does not undermine the totality of that source's definition as a whole.

How so? What's its "definition as a whole"?

You've fished for a snippet from one source which - ignoring everything else the source states - might support your bollocks.

What have I ignored??

On the plus side, rarely (if ever) have I experienced the level of support for an argument/point than I have here. People don't generally agree with me, in principle. So, genuinely, I applaud those of you who have kicked Rev in the bollocks/fanny.

You can't be serious? They may be supporting you in your exclusive interpretation of algorithm, but you actual argument is laughable,

I haven't presented any other argument/point than the one about algorithms.

Of course you have. Do you think we are stupid?!? You are a theist who sees a "designer" in a phenomenon, and are using language to try and shoehorn your beliefs in there.

And even worse for you, is the fact, as I've mentioned already, that IF this (a question about a word definition) is your sole point in this thread, then you clearly have no idea what "serious" discussion is.

and I can assure you they don't agree with that.

In principle, yes. But they don't have sufficient/any knowledge of my philosophy, so how could they [in principle] disagree?

Because a couple of us here DO know your philosophy, and I can guarantee you that the majority here will think it's absolute bollocks. If you disagree, then prove me wrong. Show them your "philosophy" and see if anyone takes you seriously.

Like I said, the idea that you can debunk a phenomenon via arbitrary interpretations of man-made terms, is utterly idiotic.

I haven't claimed to have debunked it.

Then what in titty-Christ is your point? That alone isn't "serious" discussion, so what exactly is your point?

I've asked you to explain a specific phenomenon in terms which excludes the necessity for ID. You've obviously failed to comply.

Well, who said I was finished? I gave you one option. I can give you tonnes if you want. But here's one for your serious little head - "biological replication". There you go. Now, what's your point?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The lack of anyone supporting your side in this should be a clue, Rev.

Drop it. Please. You're boring everyone. Or, better yet, post your replies in this thread.