Originally posted by XanthosNZAnd will continue to ignore. Anything in his increasingly desparate attempt to justify clinging to an antiquated, outmoded, irrellevent and ultimately antilife and especially anti-thought religion,
Nemesio gave you the fault in your logic and you didn't even notice. I'm not going to waste my time telling you what has already been said and you have ignored.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI gather you have never heard of genetic algorithms. Here is a link:
You don't write code do you?
Kelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
One such algorithm came up with a greatly improved antenna design that simulated a very directive antenna but it looked like a strangely bent up paper clip but it was directional and cheap. An antenna engineer would not have figured out that design in a million years but the genetic algorithm just made random changes that were checked against the requirement data and the ones that did worse were eliminated and the ones that did better were retained as the new base to experiment with further random changes, this process went on till an optimal design came out a lot better than anything designed by men. You could not in any way call it an intelligent designer though in the sense of creationists.
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, why don't you actually chose to defend something? Your beliefs are, well, ridiculous, based upon the physical evidence, which I'll believe over your gut feelings any day. The tornado in a junkyard is a complete fallacy, this argument has been rebuked countless times. It's just not the way either evolution or abiogenesis has ever been postulated to work, except by people like you, who seek to discredit something that they feel might damage their faith. Evolutionists don't care if you believe in god or not. I couldn't give a rat's ass if you believe in god. When your lot try and teach this rubbish as literal truth then I do have issues.
Both are true, endless energy does nothing if it does not 'do the
right things at the right time' it is simply endless energy! Back to
the billion of years cop out that all evolution has when confronted
with this argument.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzOh jesus, not the complexity argument. That belongs in that junkyard with the rest of the christian junk science. Maybe that big wind will blow some science knowlege into KJ's ears so he will see that things follow, not a god-code, but, a selective organization of atoms based on quantum probabilities.
Kelly, why don't you actually chose to defend something? Your beliefs are, well, ridiculous, based upon the physical evidence, which I'll believe over your gut feelings any day. The tornado in a junkyard is a complete fallacy, this argument has been rebuked countless times. It's just not the way either evolution or abiogenesis has ever been postulate ...[text shortened]... in god. When your lot try and teach this rubbish as literal truth then I do have issues.
Originally posted by XanthosNZYes I ignored it because it is a belief not a fact that what he said
Nemesio gave you the fault in your logic and you didn't even notice. I'm not going to waste my time telling you what has already been said and you have ignored.
has been occurring over all the generations of life. Simply stating
the point over does not prove it, simply stating the process over
again in the face of objections doesn’t dispel the objections.
You don't get to take small changes and add them up into something
much greater in functionality without direction, without boundaries
with purpose, without controlling all parts of the process, and expect
to have some more functionally complex than what you had when you
started. Left alone what does occur in this universe is a break down,
not a building up into something far more complex and grandiose.
That is what is witnessed, the belief that life does the opposite again
is only found in the minds of the true believers of evolution, it isn't
something that can be found in a little place called reality.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseQuite a design and process they had going looking for the best way
I gather you have never heard of genetic algorithms. Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
One such algorithm came up with a greatly improved antenna design that simulated a very directive antenna but it looked like a strangely bent up paper clip but it was directional and cheap. An antenna engineer would not have figured out that ...[text shortened]... n. You could not in any way call it an intelligent designer though in the sense of creationists.
to improve that antenna uh!
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat is the rub isn't it, you believe you know the literal truth and
Kelly, why don't you actually chose to defend something? Your beliefs are, well, ridiculous, based upon the physical evidence, which I'll believe over your gut feelings any day. The tornado in a junkyard is a complete fallacy, this argument has been rebuked countless times. It's just not the way either evolution or abiogenesis has ever been postulate ...[text shortened]... in god. When your lot try and teach this rubbish as literal truth then I do have issues.
you find people disagree with you too. Amazing, no one cares what
another believes, that is until they say this is the literal truth.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo evolutionist has ever asked anyone to believe that. In fact we know that is not the case as we all know about genetic diseases/deformities etc. In fact genetic diseases are very good evidence that evolution is taking place and not some inteligent designer as an inteligent designer would not make all those mistakes.
What evolutionist believers are asking everyone to believe is that
without direction, just the right keys strokes were made at just
the right time, in just the right place to ensure not only that the
program (life) to continue living, but the functional complexity of
that life increases by gaining things like hearts, brains, eyes, blood,
roots, wings, ...[text shortened]... t your
are doing, and life by far is much more complicated than any
man made computer program!
There isn’t any example where this occurs except the imagination
of the evolutionist believers, things break down the do not become
more functionally complex with time.
I have prooved you wrong on that one so many times but you continue to spout it without ever giving a single reason for the statement or commenting in my examples.
Between the ears of the true believers in evolution it has occurred, they just cannot show it occurring anywhere else, unless they use terms like “billions of years” or something along those lines.
Kelly
We have already given examples of it occuring all the time in nature today sometimes within days not billions of years though it is usually a function of the lifespan of the organism.
We have also given examples of it occuring in other circumstances such as genetic algorithms in computer programs.
Your belief that evolution is similar to random keystrokes is misguided. If however you enter random lines of code into computer virus code while allowing it to replicate millions of times on millions of computers then you will observe evolution.
Originally posted by KellyJayDirection? There isn't one. Why does there have to be one?
Yes I ignored it because it is a belief not a fact that what he said
has been occurring over all the generations of life. Simply stating
the point over does not prove it, simply stating the process over
again in the face of objections doesn’t dispel the objections.
You don't get to take small changes and add them up into something
much greater in fun ...[text shortened]... s of evolution, it isn't
something that can be found in a little place called reality.
Kelly
Boundaries? The laws of physics.
Purpose? To survive long enough to pass one's genetic material on to the next generation and hopefully to have a bit of fun while doing so.
Control? Why does there need to be control?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat is too broad a definition of "information" - it could refer to many different categories of things. For instance, in the example you gave, it could refer to the physical top card itself, the configuration (i.e. energy levels and the like) of photons reflected off the card, the specific sequence of chemical activity in the viewer's brain, the conceptual representation of the card, the laws of probability as applied to this situation, the final judgment of the viewer etc.
Information is anything that can be used to distinguish some states of systems as being more or less likely than others.
For a shuffled deck of cards, you have no information about the second card, which is to say, you cannot distinguish any possible property values of the second card as being more or less likely than other property values. You c ...[text shortened]... eliefs.
Information is our most reliable instrument for navigating the seas of uncertainty.
Further, if you say that all of these are validly considered "information", then your earlier claim (that information is limited to within the universe) is either contradicted (if you're referring to the physical universe) or causes a huge shift in what we understand by the term "universe" (which now includes conceptual beings - like God and unicorns - as well).
Originally posted by KellyJayPlease give one example of something in the universe that is 'left alone'. ie not subject to the force of gravity or any other outside influence. If not please stop making the statement as it is misleading as it is a well known fact that it does not apply to anything in the universe and is thus a false statement.
Left alone what does occur in this universe is a break down,
not a building up into something far more complex and grandiose.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerTypical LH equivocation.
Further, if you say that all of these are validly considered "information", then your earlier claim (that information is limited to within the universe) is either contradicted (if you're referring to the physical universe) or causes a huge shift in what we understand by the term "universe" (which now includes conceptual beings - like God and unicorns - as well).
Some posts: "God is outside of time! God is not bound by the universe's laws! God created the universe!"
Other posts: "We all understand God to be included in the universe!"
I stand by my notion of information. I don't think any other information theorist would have any substantial problem with it.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo evolutionist has ever asked anyone to believe that. In fact we know that is not the case as we all know about genetic diseases/deformities etc. In fact genetic diseases are very good evidence that evolution is taking place and not some inteligent designer as an inteligent designer would not make all those mistakes.[/b]
No evolutionist has ever asked anyone to believe that. In fact we know that is not the case as we all know about genetic diseases/deformities etc. In fact genetic diseases are very good evidence that evolution is taking place and not some inteligent designer as an inteligent designer would not make all those mistakes.
[b]There isn’t any example where t ...[text shortened]... wing it to replicate millions of times on millions of computers then you will observe evolution.
The design wasn't to have those errors in it if you read the creation
story as is. If that is your argument you need to take into account
that man introduced death into the system and all the flaws that
came with it.
I have prooved you wrong on that one so many times but you continue to spout it without ever giving a single reason for the statement or commenting in my examples.[/b]
You have not proven me wrong about this at any time! You may have
Re-declared your beliefs, but I'd like to see you show me an example
I have been asking for. If all you have is a fossil than your example
and proof is between your ears, because that fossil doesn't prove
that evolution is taking place; it only proves it is a fossil, what it
was in light of a progression of life cannot be known any more than
by simply looking at a horse and a zebra today, we can make a guess
about what we think about their linage nothing more.
The process that supposedly taking place as we write our posts that is
so slow no one can see it except if they live a billion years is faith it
may have rational behind it, but bottom line if it still just a belief. If
you point to small changes in DNA as proof that again only shows
small changes in DNA, it does mean those changes add up till we see
other things like new organs or completely new species coming into
existence over time as when we supposedly went from a single cell
to a blade of grass or a whale.
We have already given examples of it occuring all the time in nature today sometimes within days not billions of years though it is usually a function of the lifespan of the organism.
We have also given examples of it occuring in other circumstances such as genetic algorithms in computer programs.
You and others have said look at bacteria they change, but the issue
I still have is that you start with bacteria, you end with bacteria there
isn't bacteria now springing forth with eyes and nose when they
didn't have them ever before! You may as well talk about dogs
breeding into larger or smaller dogs, there is change, but you start
with dogs you end with dogs nothing new.
Your belief that evolution is similar to random keystrokes is misguided. If however you enter random lines of code into computer virus code while allowing it to replicate millions of times on millions of computers then you will observe evolution.
You enter random lines of code your computer will stop working if you
place those new lines in the wrong place or simply change something
that is required for the system to work. If you don’t believe go get a
small inexpensive computer you don’t care about and start changing
things a little each day everywhere within the system without regard.
I’ll be willing to be it will stop working all together before you come
up with something new you can share with the universe! I do not
recommend you try that with a system you have to rely on, you will
not like what occurs.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDid Adam and Eve have genes capable of mutation while they were in the garden? How about after they were booted from the garden?
The design wasn't to have those errors in it if you read the creation
story as is. If that is your argument you need to take into account
that man introduced death into the system and all the flaws that
came with it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThey were by design suppose to live forever, it wasn't until after sin
Did Adam and Eve have genes capable of mutation while they were in the garden? How about after they were booted from the garden?
that death entered the picture for man. What that meant as far as
mutations, don't know before, but afterward we are what we are.
Kelly