₦airaland Forum

KingEbukasBlog:
Its more like knowing letters first before you can understand words then make use of words in sentences . Knowledge of AI will give you a good foundation for robotics. Python programming will also come in handy . I learnt its used in Robotics - that explains the sudden interest

KingEbukasBlog:
For your mind you don set rejoinder ba

KingEbukasBlog:
I wanted to go through AI first before AI for robotics .

Anas09:
No, she's a Spirit.

KingEbukasBlog:
Which AI videos did you download from Udacity ? AI for robotics or just AI ?

KingEbukasBlog:
One stop programming

KingEbukasBlog:


I'm downloading python videos once I exhaust the mb , to bed straight

KingEbukasBlog:
We dey wait for you

4everGod:
Ebuka believes in micro mutations but sees Macro evolution as a huge farce which is true.

Regarding the rest he will change with further proof as i believe he holds loosely to them. However creation is solidly his foundation.

KingEbukasBlog:
Age of the earth you mean ?

Well , rocks and minerals are best used to determine the age of the earth . Then there's the cyanobacteria which is the earliest fossil known I think - its about 3 billion years ago - which were found in rocks .

And Progressive creationism has to do with gradual formation of life not by evolution but through creation by God . There's evidence for these - I mean how old they are - but there's no proof of transition from one form to another . Its all speculation by the evolutionists .

KingEbukasBlog:
The calculation was done by adding through the genealogies from Adam to this current time - that's how the idea of a 6000 year old earth was begotten but radiometric dating disproves this . So as an old earth creationist - a progressive creationist - I lean toward the belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years or so .

The proof for progressive creationism is being shared with macro-evolution

4everGod:
My position is not about Age. Its about how truthful evolution actually is and if at all anything like such occurred Hence the OP.

However the bible calculation says 6000 years or so. Who has bothered to investigate this? What scientist has bothered about this even if the possibility of it being true may be 1% is it not worth being looked into?

Dreadlord:
My bad, I I just get really frustrated when someone thinks it's way cooler to write a hello world application in treefrog than writing a complex web application in Ruby or php.
OP, my apologies. I you should try oriely's programming Python 4th edition it has what you are looking for. Once again sorry.

MrPresident1:
Predestination plans for babies and brethren here on earth? I dont understand you. Elucidate

4everGod:
The parameters cannot be gotten because you were not there when the very first drop left the jug. You never witnessed the mid part but only came at the end and assumed that what you saw at the end is what has been steadily happening from the start when it could have been possible that i stopped at the point and put the jug down, had a meal, had a chat with someone which probably lasted a considerable amount of time before picking up the jug again to continue which was when you came in and saw the final parts.

So right from the beginning to where you met the process would be an assumption for you, however i witnessed the beginning and the middle so i can tell you accurately what happened before you came in.

That being said if you assume the error could be 20% and we assume the earth is probably 4billion years old then that 20% error rate would amount to 800million years which is a lot when you talk about errors. Dont you agree?

Dreadlord:
In my opinion, I am I don't see why you want to reinvent the wheel. I bet you don't use class libraries, you don't even use a programming language. You code in Binary. You don't even need code, you process data manually since you are a boss man.

EyeHateGod:
My love it was a Question

4everGod:
Another way to look at it is this;

Imagine I take a jug to fill a glass with orange juice, and somebody enters the room just as the last few drops fall into the glass. I then ask the person how long it took me to fill the glass. That person then commences counting the seconds between the drops falling into the glass, quantifying the volume of the glass, and makes the ASSUMPTION that the rate at which the last few drops fall into the glass is the constant rate at which I have been filling the glass all along. He then tells me according to ’scientific calculations’ it took me so many months to fill the glass. Sounds absurd? Well it’s the same with the age of the earth. We arrive on the scene late, measure certain rates of deposition/erosion of sediments and ASSUME that the rate is constant, then proceed to calculate millions of years for the age of the earth according to ‘geological evidence’

2 THINGS MUST WORK TO GIVE ACCURACY...EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT AND WRITTEN RECORD.

4kings how do you know your age?

MrMontella:
what happend to radioactive dating bro?

And what huge possibilities are you talking about?

MrPresident1:
Lucifer is a title. Lucifer is the title of a leader in any field, the pathfinder, the one who sets the pace. A lucifer becomes satan or adversary of God when he begins to use the powers that God has given him for evil purposes.

satan is the one who is presently in in charge of this world. Christ already defeated him 2000yrs ago, Christ is not coming to do battle, Christ is coming to destroy him completely.

Then Christ will reign forever as the authentic Lucifer, and bearer of the light of God.

4everGod:
Yes its not totally wrong but sits more with not being right than not being totally wrong. A slight error with input data can give huge errors which would be thought as right.

If we do not have data from the beginning of these rocks or radioactivity then what parameters are right and wrong?

benzics:
@anas09 and 4kings why I didn't reply either of you is because am familiar with your attitudes, you make claims and when one counters them, you dodge and disappear like KingEbukasBlog into thin air

Oya, keep jerking off to the posts made by someone who doesn't understand evolution..

4everGod:
Good! I am glad the OP corrected a misinformation you had before now. I would however recommend that you read through the OP again at a calmer time...perhaps more would be revealed to you.

4everGod:
My stand on Uranium Lead Dating is thus;

A swimming race illustrates the simple principles involved in quantifying time. This swimmer is competing in a 1,500 metre race and we have a precise, calibrated wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer physically contacts the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1,500 metre race?

You cannot ken how long the swimmer took unless you kenned the time on the wristwatch when the race commenced. Without the commencement time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Again i reiterate IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!

Authentically, kenning the commencement time is still not enough. During the race you have to optically canvass the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you ken that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to ascertain he physically contacts the edge at the terminus of each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you require at least two, sometimes three judges to quantify the time of the race to the standard needed to enter the record books

This illustrates the whole quandary with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend an abundance of time impressing you with the details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they omit discussion of the rudimental imperfection in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock utilizing radioactive dating because you were not present to quantify the radioactive elements when the rock composed and you did not monitor the way those elements transmuted over its entire geological history.

In other words, the fatal quandary with all radioactive dates is that they are all predicated on posits about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the postulations you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up a postulated geological history for rock depending on the numbers that emanate from the geochronology lab

4everGod:
Now this is an intelligent young man! However as the icing on the cake do you believe there is a God?

KingEbukasBlog:
Hey bro , how far are you in python programming ? I watched videos about the prog lang which reignited my interest in programming . So I wan' know how far you've gone and erm I need to know the paraphernalia - pdf docs , videos - which helped you .

benzics:
Can you for once stop saying logic! Science didn't get the cure of malaria through logic! They simply studied the effects and ways to counter the effects!! No scientific fact is based on logic. Am sure if you are a scientist, you know steps things have to go through to become a fact right? AND LOGIC IS NOT ONE OF THEM..

Logic is only applied when you have no fact or evidence AND normally, such things can't happen logically, so you disprove them, not the other way round, using philosophical logic to "claim to know" of a God!