Darwin on steroids, new nanomaterial work:

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fact is that you did not debunk anything I have presented. Not only that, you would not even look at the evidence of the facts I presented. So it appears that you are the thick one.

The Instructor

The only evidence you EVER put up is the biased work designed AHEAD OF TIME to aim at one result. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. THAT IS POLITICS.

THAT IS WEAPONIZING SCIENCE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS.

You think you are gods gift to intelligence but really you are just the poster boy for the duped and your 6000 year so-called history is not even spelled out in the bible, just interpretations by men and you fall for it hook line and sinker.

That is where EVERY one of your so-called scientific video's aim. They are ONLY interested in PERVERTING science to the aims of the creationist. That is not science. Again, that is POLITICS and you fell for it hook line and sinker.

You are a sucker and don't even know it. And it seems, never will.

You and your ilk grow weaker decade by decade and there will be no more young earth creationists in the future and the world will be FAR better off without them.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The only evidence you EVER put up is the biased work designed AHEAD OF TIME to aim at one result. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. THAT IS POLITICS.

THAT IS WEAPONIZING SCIENCE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS.

You think you are gods gift to intelligence but really you are just the poster boy for the duped and your 6000 year so-called hist ...[text shortened]... o more young earth creationists in the future and the world will be FAR better off without them.

Do you prefer the Gap Theory or perhaps the Hugh Ross interpretation that includes an old earth of billions of years?

The videos I presented on this thread have nothing to do with the Bible. Actually I have not presented any videos on this thread.

The Instructor

Originally posted by sonhouse
And of course, it is your vast programming experience that says that, right?

It couldn't possibly have anything to do with your hatred for Darwin, could it? Or the use of the term Evolution, like they should instead use the term inverse devolution, that would be ok?

As you said, the source of any algorithm is a programmer. Here is a video putting forward the idea that evolution is an algorithmic process.

Daniel Dennett - Is Evolution an Algorithmic Process? Part 2

YouTube

I skipped part 1 because it is just an introduction to the speaker. He presents the way I and many others see it in this part 2 even though he does not seem to agree with it.

I am not saying that someone can not program a computer to use an algorithm to simulate evolution or devolution or something else. I was just trying to point out that Darwinian Evolution is not the source of any algorithm. The programmer with mind and intelligence is the source.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
As you said, the source of any algorithm is a programmer. Here is a video putting forward the idea that evolution is an algorithmic process.

Daniel Dennett - Is Evolution an Algorithmic Process? Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCYAfkADdeM

I skipped part 1 because it is just an introduction to the speaker. He presents the way I and many othe ...[text shortened]... ce of any algorithm. The programmer with mind and intelligence is the source.

The Instructor

Well, DUH. What we are trying to get through your self admitted thick skull is there are a lot of ways to program. You can program deterministically where one result leads to another and will do so regardless of how many times that sub routine is used or you can use randomness and change small parameters randomly and check to see if the new result produces a result closer to the specified objective.

That is pretty much exactly what evolution does, uses small random changes and runs it up the flagpole to see what solutes, it it helps the organism or does it go rogue and kill it or make it sterile or some such.

This is EXACTLY what is meant by Darwinian algorithms.

In your hatred of those terms you cannot even accept ANYTHING that smacks of evolution regardless of whether it pertains to life forms or not.

That makes you the poster boy for closed mindedness.

You cannot come up with anything CLOSE to real science, only that which tries to force a viewpoint, a built in bias to force a POV on people.

I keep telling you but you cannot or refuse to see that as politics not science.

Politics is the art of convincing people of POV's, that is the bottom line of it and that is EXACTLY what your so-called creation science boys are all about. They are interested in one thing and one thing only. To convince people of the 'validity' of creationism, regardless of the truth of the matter.

If evidence comes their way otherwise, it will be poo poo'd, flat out rejected or denied because it does not agree with their POV.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. I repeat: THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.

That is, by definition, POLITICS. Pure and simple.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, DUH. What we are trying to get through your self admitted thick skull is there are a lot of ways to program. You can program deterministically where one result leads to another and will do so regardless of how many times that sub routine is used or you can use randomness and change small parameters randomly and check to see if the new result produces ...[text shortened]... OT SCIENCE. I repeat: THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.

That is, by definition, POLITICS. Pure and simple.

Some view the complexity of life as top down and not bottom up. A non-biological example is that a potter makes a pot. Darwinian Theory turns this idea upside down so that a pot can make a potter. Darwin believed that absolute ignorance produces wisdom. However others, like myself, believe that the wise must instruct the ignorant before he obtains wisdom. That is why I call myself ...

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some view the complexity of life as top down and not bottom up. A non-biological example is that a potter makes a pot. Darwinian Theory turns this idea upside down so that a pot can make a potter. Darwin believed that absolute ignorance produces wisdom. However others, like myself, believe that the wise must instruct the ignorant before he obtains wisdom. That is why I call myself ...

The Instructor

As it turns out, the truth is the pot makes the potter. We all came from wet rocks. No god needed, no intelligent designer needed. It is not random.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is why I call myself ...

The moron

-there, fixed, that's better.

Originally posted by humy
-there, fixed, that's better.

Okay, have your fun, but I am still right and you are still wrong.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, have your fun, but I am still right and you are still wrong.

The Instructor

Anyone who thinks they're smarter than our greatest minds needs to exchange their analysis board for an analyst's couch.

Originally posted by woodypusher
Anyone who thinks they're smarter than our greatest minds needs to exchange their analysis board for an analyst's couch.

His condescending delusional arrogance is beyond belief. He has NO scientific credentials whatsoever and has repeatedly demonstrated he doesn't understand the simplest of scientific concepts and must have an IQ one hell of a lot lower than most scientists here and yet believes and makes out he knows not only more about science than we in this forum do but, despite repeatedly demonstrating he doesn't understand very basic physics, even knows better than the likes of Einstein and Neil Bohr (by rejecting their physics when it conflicts with his religious beliefs ) -I wouldn't be so delusional think nor pretend to be anywhere near having the intelligence of such scientists despite the fact that RJ is so stupid as to make me look like a genius.

Originally posted by humy
His condescending delusional arrogance is beyond belief. He has NO scientific credentials whatsoever and has repeatedly demonstrated he doesn't understand the simplest of scientific concepts and must have an IQ one hell of a lot lower than most scientists here and yet believes and makes out he knows not only more about science than we in this forum do but, desp ...[text shortened]... gence of such scientists despite the fact that RJ is so stupid as to make me look like a genius.

Don't flatter yourself, for you certainly don't look like a genius. I would put you in the numbnuts category.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Don't flatter yourself, for you certainly don't look like a genius. I would put you in the numbnuts category.

The Moron

That's because you don't know what clever means -you would first have to have some intelligence to know what clever is. I'm not the one who thinks of himself as particularly clever here -you are. I am claiming not to be a genius but rather a genius compared to you -get it now?

Originally posted by humy
That's because you don't know what clever means -you would first have to have some intelligence to know what clever is. I'm not the one who thinks of himself as particularly clever here -you are. I am claiming not to be a genius but rather a genius compared to you -get it now?

Well, I am wise compared to you.

The Instructor