On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:38:00 -0700 "Terry M. Gray"
<grayt@lamar.colostate.edu> writes:
>
>
> Why is efficiency a matter of perfection? Why is instantaneous a
> matter of perfection? What is a "finished form"? Perhaps God wanted
>
> to supersede time after time with new fiat creations. (BTW, I don't
>
> actually think this is the case.) You're sounding like the
> Aristotelian who thinks that circular orbits are perfect and
> elliptical orbits are not.
>
> Why does separate creations of similar forms indicate a bumbling
> along? It may be bumbling for us, but since we know that God could
> have done it differently, it isn't bumbling for Him. It's fully
> compatible with His perfect will and purpose.
>
> I don't think this argument gets you anywhere with Hugh Ross or
> YEC's.
>
> TG
>
Terry,
If you don't see that a 64-bit chip is better than a 32-bit chip, (I note
that we've been considering $2000 a reasonable price for a good computer
for many years) and both are better than the chips in the early computers
that had to be programmed by connecting jumpers, and that, had the
designers of UNIVAC known how to contruct any chips, they'd have skipped
vacuum tubes, I don't know what to say to convince you. If we were
comparing analog and digital computers, I'd recognize a more difficult
problem. But it seems to me that fitting niche X ideally compared to
fitting niche Y poorly is a straightforward matter.
You're right about convincing those who KNOW the truth.
Dave
Received on Wed Mar 2 22:01:48 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 22:01:49 EST