Speed of Light and Age of Universe

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay
Has anyone ever seen life mutating and changing into other
forms of life as a worm like creature in size, turning into
a dog or a blade of grass? Do you see lizards mating with
oak trees?

Kelly

These misrepresentations of evolution are always so cute.

If I were to come upon a lizard mating with an oak tree, I would likely take such a display as evidence of the supernatural long before I could take it as evidence of evolutionary theory.

When one attempts to compare dishonest notions of worms transforming into dogs to Biblical notions of creation... I myself might also find the concept of molding man out of clay much more realistic.

-JC

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm happy to answer your questions, but could you please just say (1) or (2) in response to my inquiry. Which do you think the evidence more strongly supports?

I think KJ lost that section of his brain which allowed him to answer questions.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm happy to answer your questions, but could you please just say (1) or (2) in response to my inquiry. Which do you think the evidence more strongly supports?

2

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Reductio ad absurdum, eh Kelly?

As you say, the universe tends to disorder, but that's not to say individual parts cannot become more ordered. A water pump pumping water uphill is increasing the energy of the water (decreasing its entropy), but only does so at the expense of more energy, noise etc. The decrease in entropy on earth is as a result of the sun slowly burning itself out.

Ordered doesn't fit the bill now does it, is life ordered or functionally
complex in its make up? Give me some examples that we can
see, not just imagine where we something becoming more functionally
complex over time instead of trending towards disorder. You can
have a pump pushing water uphill, no big deal with more energy,
you are not going to get a Grandmaster strength chess program
by randomly typing into a computer with endless energy.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Ordered doesn't fit the bill now does it, is life ordered or functionally
complex in its make up? Give me some examples that we can
see, not just imagine where we something becoming more functionally
complex over time instead of trending towards disorder. You can
have a pump pushing water uphill, no big deal with more energy,
you are not going to get a ...[text shortened]... ndmaster strength chess program
by randomly typing into a computer with endless energy.
Kelly

Chess engines have two main algorithmic parts. The pruning mechanism (whereby it determines which moves it should look at and which are dead ends), and the evaluation mechanism (which determines what scores (in pawns) to give a position based on positional and material values).

So if we start with a simple engine which doesn't prune at all (but does have the capacity for pruning) and only looks at material when determining evaluation and then we modify the two sections in a small random manner (first change could be something like "Prune anything that hangs a piece" or "Kings are safest in the corners"😉. We generate 100 engines in the first generation. We then need to determine which of this generation to use in the next. Perhaps pairing them up to play each other and then only taking the winners.
We then take the 50 remaining engines and pair them up. Each pair is spliced together in 4 different (randomly chosen) ways and during this new random sections are added.
And so it continues. After enough generations you will have a good approximation of a chess engine.

The process has been used successfully to create electronic circuits involving large numbers of logic gates.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Ordered doesn't fit the bill now does it, is life ordered or functionally
complex in its make up? Give me some examples that we can
see, not just imagine where we something becoming more functionally
complex over time instead of trending towards disorder. You can
have a pump pushing water uphill, no big deal with more energy,
you are not going to get a ...[text shortened]... ndmaster strength chess program
by randomly typing into a computer with endless energy.
Kelly

I have given this example many times before: Place a class of muddy water (disordered, functionally simple) on a table and leave to stand for several hours. You will find that it has separated itself (sorted) into various different sizes of sand grain, almost clear water and some floating debri (ordered, functionally complex). Many many simple examples can be found. In fact if this wasnt the case, and only life is capable of bringing about order then we would probably all live in a sea of uniform mud.
The world does not work solely on randomness, there are forces and laws of physics so your example of random typing is not relevant at all. If you type into a computer following cirtain laws or rules then yes you will get complex patterns. Not neccessarily a Grandmaster strength chess program, but then evolution has not produced 50 ton birds. There is a big difference between saying something can or will become functionally more complex and saying that it will become the particular functionally complex thing that you have just thought of.
The Theory of evolution is an explanation of how complex things can become not only more complex but do so at a far greater rate than normal randomness would imply due to a process called natural selection where cirtain trends are selected for and only those branches of the random tree continuing thus reducing the vast array of possibilities.

Chess programs work this way. If a chess program was to calculate every possible move for both sides and just stick to that method for as long as it could and evaluate the result after say 4moves of calulation, they would be very weak and require vast calculation ability. However if cirtain moves are discarded as unreasonable and cirtain moves selected as favourable and those calculated further then it dramatically increases the strength of the chess engine and allows much more strength to be obtained from a given amount of processing power.

Originally posted by KellyJay
2

Could you list some evidence that supports man coming into existence by being molded from clay and having God breathe through into his nostrils?

I'll get to work on your other questions now.

Originally posted by KellyJay

Once life started "how and when" was it witnessed, was it
recorded, can there be a test that shows the how and why?
Is the creation story, up against another story, another
possible explanation, this other explanation can it be shown
to be true or false? Are we left putting our faith in a story
no matter which way we turn?

Man has been blessed with sufficient intellect to not need to witness events in order to justifiably believe that they have occurred. For example, begin
with a shuffled deck of cards. Do you know without looking what the bottom card is? No, but this is not implied by the fact that you haven't witnessed it. It's implied by the fact that you lack sufficient information about it. Peel the first 51 cards off the top, looking at and remembering each. Do you now know without looking at the bottom card what it is? I hope you do, even without witnessing it.

What the card is is effectively recorded in the available information - the 51 cards you have observed - sufficient to allow you to make a sound inference (a deduction, even) about what the unseen card is.

To test your conclusion, you need not even look at the card. You merely need to verify that the information actually does indicate the card that you think it is.

Similarly, we can draw conclusions about the evolutionary process, not by witnessing it directly (although we have done that in part) but by using the informational record just as in the case of the cards. There is a plentiful record of abundant information regarding the record of species, all pointing to the same general conclusions, ultimately no differently than in the card game.

Let's improve the analogy. As you are probably aware, there are 26 red cards and 26 black cards in a deck. Suppose I want to know whether the 50th card is red or black. Do I know after shuffling, that is, with no information? Nope. But suppose I peel off the top 49 and see that 25 of those were red. I now know that of the remaining 3 cards, two are black and one is red. Unlike before, I don't know with certainty that the 50th card is black, but I have sufficient evidence to justify the belief that it is. I could be wrong, but I'd be in even worse shape, even more likely to be wrong, if I believed it was red.

Similary, the evidence in favor of evolution doesn't indicate with certainty that it is correct. It indicates that evolution is probably true, and that a completely different explanation is probably false. It doesn't indicate that those with faith in Genesis must be wrong; it indicates only that such a belief isn't supported by the available information, like believing the 50th card is red.

You might say this is faith in a story no matter which way we turn, but I don't. I think it is clear that there is an objective and well-defined difference between a belief without informtaional support and a belief with one. Even if you call them both faiths due to their uncertainty, they can still be distinguised by anybody who wants to make the distinction based on the informational standard.
[/b]

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Chess engines have two main algorithmic parts. The pruning mechanism (whereby it determines which moves it should look at and which are dead ends), and the evaluation mechanism (which determines what scores (in pawns) to give a position based on positional and material values).

So if we start with a simple engine which doesn't prune at all (but does hav ...[text shortened]... een used successfully to create electronic circuits involving large numbers of logic gates.

Yep if we put a lot of thought into it, we could write a good one.
Having on start out of nothing but random key strokes and get to
the level of grandmaster is quite another thing all together.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay


What is creation being matched against?

Creation in general is a metaphysical claim and as such, has no rival in the realm of science. It's not being challenged by or matched against any other scientific claim.

Specific implementations of creation - such as God creating man by hand within days of the earth being formed - are no longer metaphysical claims but physical claims, and as such, are subject to rival theories, just as any other physical claim would be.

In the example of God creating man within days of the earth being formed, that implementation of creation is matched against the theory that the earth existed for a long, long time before man.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have given this example many times before: Place a class of muddy water (disordered, functionally simple) on a table and leave to stand for several hours. You will find that it has separated itself (sorted) into various different sizes of sand grain, almost clear water and some floating debri (ordered, functionally complex). Many many simple examples ca ...[text shortened]... ess engine and allows much more strength to be obtained from a given amount of processing power.

I beg to differ, since we are looking at a code within life inside of
DNA that has specific tasks in it. Writing a chess program is the
exact type of thing we need to be looking at, can it happen given
an unlimited amount of energy? I understand that the universe
will act in certain ways as your water example shows, I can throw
a rock into the sky it will fall to the ground; however, neither of
those examples show us a chess program can be written and reach
master strength by random key strokes. I’d also say that the
genetic code in DNA is more like a program than water separating
too, that type of order doesn’t mean life, it simply means order.
Kelly

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Man has been blessed with sufficient intellect to not need to witness events in order to justifiably believe that they have occurred. For example, begin
with a shuffled deck of cards. Do you know without looking what the bottom card is? No, but this is not implied by the fact that you haven't witnessed it. It's implied by the fact that you lack ...[text shortened]... by anybody who wants to make the distinction based on the informational standard.
[/b]

You might say this is faith in a story no matter which way we turn, but I don't. I think it is clear that there is an objective and well-defined difference between a belief without informtaional support and a belief with one. Even if you call them both faiths, they can still be distinguised by anybody who wants to make the distinction based on the informational standard.

So tell me if our starting points are different, I accept that God is real
and you do not, can you accept even the chance that God created the
universe?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay

So tell me if our starting points are different, I accept that God is real
and you do not, can you accept even the chance that God created the
universe?
Kelly

To ask whether I accept that God is real for the purpose of deliberations about the evidence in support of various physical claims indicates a confusion of several ideas.

My starting point does not hold that God is not real. My starting point doesn't hold that anything is the case, aside from some very elementary necessities for deliberation about the universe, such as the law of non-contradiction being manifest, and my perceptions being my most reliable means of extracting information.

Thus, my starting point does not preclude any particular explanation about anything. Otherwise, it wouldn't really be a starting point. If the evidence indicates that man most likely appeared on the earth a few days after it was created, then so be it. Even if I already believed otherwise due to previous limited information, that previous belief wouldn't preclude the new belief.

Further, "God is real" or "God created the universe" are metaphysical claims and not subject to informational deliberation. There is no such thing as "the chance that God created the universe" - it's not 0%, it's not 100%, it's not anything, because it is incoherent, as information and thus chance cannot apply to metaphysical events. So whether I have faith in that or not has no bearing on my evaluation of scientific claims, anymore than my dislike of licorice does.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Further, "God is real" or "God created the universe" are metaphysical claims and not subject to informational deliberation.

1. What do you mean by a "metaphysical claim"?
2. What do you mean by "informational deliberation"?
3. Why are metaphysical claims not subject to informational deliberation?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. What do you mean by a "metaphysical claim"?
2. What do you mean by "informational deliberation"?
3. Why are metaphysical claims not subject to informational deliberation?

A metaphysical claim is one that states that something is the case external to the universe.

All information available to us is within the universe and distinguishes only between states of the universe.

Informational deliberation is the process of determining whether the weight of the evidence indicates that some claim is more likely to be true or false.

Metaphysical claims are not subject to informational deliberation because they purport that something external to the universe is the case, while we have no information about that which is external to the universe.

To reject this is to assert that one can have a meaningful deliberation about the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.