A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its all in the random numbers. If you ask your computer to generate a random number (In Microsoft Excel just put =rand() in a cell.), then you are telling the computer to generate a random number, and it will do so, but you are not telling it which exact number to produce. You can then base an if statement on the output and the actions of the computer the ...[text shortened]... simple set of rules it is possible for greater complexity to evolve - a fact that Kelly denies.

Because to admit it would mean to cause conflict with his dogma, which will never happen. The world could come to an end and he would be hanging on to his monkey till the final crunch.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well it shows that evolution works even in programming.

Yes, it does, ID hands down can get the job done, but can it happen
without any plan, purpose, or design built into the process?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its all in the random numbers. If you ask your computer to generate a random number (In Microsoft Excel just put =rand() in a cell.), then you are telling the computer to generate a random number, and it will do so, but you are not telling it which exact number to produce. You can then base an if statement on the output and the actions of the computer the ...[text shortened]... simple set of rules it is possible for greater complexity to evolve - a fact that Kelly denies.

You put in the random number generator, you give the computer
program the stop, starts, holds, add, subtract, whatever calculations
you built into your program to do, then whatever they are it will
run its course as you programmed it too. You set up the conditions
even if you do not know what the random numbers that are going to
show up when, if you are looking for numbers that is programmed, if
you are looking for other odd random inputs that is still you
programming your program to do whatever it is to do when it accepts
the input or random numbers you told it to look for. Will your random
number generator ever give you "peanuts" as an input, if it got one
did you program into your code checks to make sure you were getting
the proper inputs?
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its all in the random numbers. If you ask your computer to generate a random number (In Microsoft Excel just put =rand() in a cell.), then you are telling the computer to generate a random number, and it will do so, but you are not telling it which exact number to produce. You can then base an if statement on the output and the actions of the computer the ...[text shortened]... simple set of rules it is possible for greater complexity to evolve - a fact that Kelly denies.

I'm not saying computer rules are false, they are rules, and you
work within them to do what is it you want, and when you code you
get the program to do what you tell it to.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not saying computer rules are false, they are rules, and you
work within them to do what is it you want, and when you code you
get the program to do what you tell it to.
Kelly

You're trying to say that a computer program written by a programmer with a certain goal in mind can't help but deliver that result, and therefore the program amounts to a tautology. In the case of a computer program, this is not generally the case (as many others have pointed out). However, in the case of the Intelligent Design argument, a tautology is all you have. You can't have it both ways, either you like tautologies or you don't. Which is it?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You put in the random number generator, you give the computer
program the stop, starts, holds, add, subtract, whatever calculations
you built into your program to do, then whatever they are it will
run its course as you programmed it too. You set up the conditions
even if you do not know what the random numbers that are going to
show up when, if you ar ...[text shortened]... did you program into your code checks to make sure you were getting
the proper inputs?
Kelly

I cant quite figure out what you are saying, but you are clearly not getting the point yet.

Let me try it this way:
Everything in nature can theoretically be simulated with 100% accuracy on a computer. (think 'the matrix'😉. Why would you differentiate the results of an event in nature from the results of an event in an identical simulated nature?

Nature is 'programmed' by the laws of physics. Everything happens according to a program. Why does your argument not apply to nature?
You reject the results of natures program as having no intelligent input because you look at the data and see randomness. Yet when I produce a computer program with random data as input you reject it on the grounds that the program is intelligently designed. You just cant seem to get your story straight.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I cant quite figure out what you are saying, but you are clearly not getting the point yet.

Let me try it this way:
Everything in nature can theoretically be simulated with 100% accuracy on a computer. (think 'the matrix'😉. Why would you differentiate the results of an event in nature from the results of an event in an identical simulated nature?

N ...[text shortened]... s that the program is intelligently designed. You just cant seem to get your story straight.

Let me say it this way, no it is not, you cannot tell me you have
covered all the bases with life. Well, I should word it you may believe
you have simulated it all, but you don't have that knowledge, what
knowledge you do have you apply to your software, and you BUILD
into your software rules that take into account some randomness
that you install with the rules of code you are bound to use. You use
a code that is filled with 1 and 0 and life is not like that.

I'm not rejecting your randomess, I'm telling you, you have built in
the program randomness, you have boundries you have to
follow, you have a number generator, it produces what, numbers?

You can run your program, it was designed by you to do what you
think life is doing, and you are telling me that with all of the rules
and conditions you applied to your program through your design,
you are suppose to be simulating a process that does not have
any design to it, that came about without purpose, that just occured.

You think the work of your mind simulated something that you
claim didn't have any plan behind it, was it an effort to mimic
a meaningless, purposeless, designless process?
Kelly

Originally posted by PBE6
You're trying to say that a computer program written by a programmer with a certain goal in mind can't help but deliver that result, and therefore the program amounts to a tautology. In the case of a computer program, this is not generally the case (as many others have pointed out). However, in the case of the Intelligent Design argument, a tautology is all y ...[text shortened]... have. You can't have it both ways, either you like tautologies or you don't. Which is it?

All I'm saying is, read this slowly so it doesn't slip past you,
a programmer writes code for the program s/he wants to write.
It is a designed program by a program designer!

Did that sink in?

Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
All I'm saying is, read this slowly so it doesn't slip past you,
a programmer writes code for the program s/he wants to write.
It is a designed program by a program designer!

Did that sink in?

Kelly

Still doesn't know anything about computer simulation programs, do you...?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Let me say it this way, no it is not, you cannot tell me you have
covered all the bases with life. Well, I should word it you may believe
you have simulated it all, but you don't have that knowledge, what
knowledge you do have you apply to your software, and you BUILD
into your software rules that take into account some randomness
that you install with ...[text shortened]... de you are bound to use. You use
a code that is filled with 1 and 0 and life is not like that.

I never said that I had simulated life. I merely said that it was theoretically possible. Are you disputing that? Do you believe that there is something about life that cannot be discovered and then simulated?

Further, for the purposes of this thread, it is not necessary to simulate life in all its complexity. It is only necessary to simulate a small set of known rules. An evolutionist claims that a small set of known properties of life can result in the evolution of a more complex life form from a less complex life form. You deny that. A computer simulation settles the question once and for all.

I'm not rejecting your randomess, I'm telling you, you have built in
the program randomness, you have boundries you have to
follow, you have a number generator, it produces what, numbers?
And your point is?

You can run your program, it was designed by you to do what you
think life is doing, and you are telling me that with all of the rules
and conditions you applied to your program through your design,
you are suppose to be simulating a process that does not have
any design to it, that came about without purpose, that just occured.
Yes.

You think the work of your mind simulated something that you
claim didn't have any plan behind it, was it an effort to mimic
a meaningless, purposeless, designless process?
Kelly
Yes. Do you dispute that? If so, provide some reasoning to back up your claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You think the work of your mind simulated something that you
claim didn't have any plan behind it, was it an effort to mimic
a meaningless, purposeless, designless process?
Kelly
Yes. Do you dispute that? If so, provide some reasoning to back up your claim.

KJ disputes everything that even remotely starts with S-C-I and ends with E-N-C-E.

Originally posted by KellyJay
All I'm saying is, read this slowly so it doesn't slip past you,
a programmer writes code for the program s/he wants to write.
It is a designed program by a program designer!

Did that sink in?

Kelly

If that's all you're asserting, then yes, I agree. However, your other posts imply that you consider any output from a computer program to be designed for. This is not true. The designer designs the algorithm, but is not always in control of the output. The goal in this case is not a specific piece of output, but the process itself.

A simple algorithm that involves randomness but no code is the simple flipping of a coin. The output is bounded (either the coin will come up heads or tails...or possibly land on its side, a la "The Twilight Zone" ), but the output is also random. Could the coin flipper be said to be designing his coin flip for a specific outcome? What specific outcome would that be? The answer is analogous in the case of a computer program that bases its iteration of random input.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said that I had simulated life. I merely said that it was theoretically possible. Are you disputing that? Do you believe that there is something about life that cannot be discovered and then simulated?

Further, for the purposes of this thread, it is not necessary to simulate life in all its complexity. It is only necessary to simulate a small s s?
Kelly
Yes. Do you dispute that? If so, provide some reasoning to back up your claim.[/b]

You may by all means code what you think is going on into a computer
program, no denying that, actually that is one of my points. It is just
like stealing someone else' design and running with it, here is code
that does this and you write yours to do what you think is the same
thing.

Does that mean that the other code wrote itself from the very
beginning? Did a main frame some where or a brand new quad core
personal computer have a hiccup and spit out some code randomly
without anything error checking, and hiccupped a piece of
sophisticated code that not only functioned properly, continued to
improve itself over time no matter what the obstacles placed in front
of it, reproduced, heals itself, sees, hears, tastes, reasons, and other
odds and ends?

Your reasoning is completely circular here, you write a piece of code to
perform a specific way, it does it, and then you shout as if you proved
something about how it could happen without any intelligence behind
it. The only thing you really did was show intelligence can do what you
think is being done by trying to simulate what you think life is doing.
During your writing of this fine piece of software and I am not
attempting to belittle here that is very impressive; you should now
have at least a glimmer of a clue on how problematic some of that
stuff really is.

I also doubt you built your code to the level of sophistication that is
present in life too with all the weaknesses and strengths there, for
several reasons, one just being our computers are binary 1 and 0 life
isn’t like that, so you are mimicking something that is much more
complex than how our current computers systems function.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said that I had simulated life. I merely said that it was theoretically possible. Are you disputing that? Do you believe that there is something about life that cannot be discovered and then simulated?

Further, for the purposes of this thread, it is not necessary to simulate life in all its complexity. It is only necessary to simulate a small s ...[text shortened]... s?
Kelly
Yes. Do you dispute that? If so, provide some reasoning to back up your claim.[/b]

"An evolutionist claims that a small set of known properties of life can result in the evolution of a more complex life form from a less complex life form. You deny that. A computer simulation settles the question once and for all. "

You are in an controlled enviroment, building something that does
what you want it to do, with all the strenghts and weaknesses you
allow to be part of your computer simulation. Your software behaves
the way you wrote it, and you think that proves life does what you
says it does, I disagree with you completely yes. The only thing that
proves is you can write code to do what you want it to do, it does not
prove life does what you claim.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
All I'm saying is, read this slowly so it doesn't slip past you,
a programmer writes code for the program s/he wants to write.
It is a designed program by a program designer!

Did that sink in?

Kelly

The outcome is still random. Did that sink in?

A random outcome is not what ID is about. ID is about God designing the rules AND setting up the shocks such that the outcome was the one desired and the only one possible.