11 Oct 08
Originally posted by PBE6I don't care what numbers are being generated or for that matter how
Yes, it generates numbers. However, although I know the biggest and smallest numbers it could generate, I can't predict which number it will generate.
random your random number generator is, the point is you design the
structure of your program, it has levels of randomness to it, but in the
end that is just part of your program. You build it to get an output and
you get an output by design; it gives you what you asked for. So you
have by design an output, and you want to compare it to something
that is suppose to be doing some incredible complex work but and
this is a huge 'but', without any plan, purpose, or design behind it.
When you run your program claims are made this shows us that
without design it can happen. I think you need to rethink the whole
apples and oranges thing with it comes to comparisons.
Kelly
11 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton“Yes -you can control the design of the algorithm but NOT necessarily the output of a simulation the algorithm makes -are you unable to comprehend the simple difference between an “algorithm” and the “output of the simulation the algorithm makes“? “
[b]…I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm! ..….
Yes -you can control the design of the algorithm but NOT necessarily the output of a simulation the algorithm makes -are you unable to compreh ...[text shortened]... at HAVE occurred -there is nothing hard to comprehend here and there is no logical problem here.[/b]
I am not disputing the output of your “designed” program is the result
of an algorithms which have randomness to them! I’m not disputing
there are random inputs to mimic what you, “BELIEVE” are part of life
as it relates to over coming odds in evolution. I’m saying you are
deceiving yourself in believing a designed program can prove a
non-design program can do the amount of complex work required to
keep life improving over time. It proves ID can do it, but until you
show me something that just occurred without anything designing it to
reach its end result, you are comparing apples to oranges as it relates
to the complexity in life. If you want to simulate something simple as
a coin flip I'd agree with you, but it isn't the samething.
Kelly
11 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…You build it to get an output and
I don't care what numbers are being generated or for that matter how
random your random number generator is, the point is you design the
structure of your program, it has levels of randomness to it, but in the
end that is just part of your program. You build it to get an output and
you get an output by design; it gives you what you asked for. So you
ha you need to rethink the whole
apples and oranges thing with it comes to comparisons.
Kelly
you get an output by design;
..….
As many of us have repeatedly told you and which you simply ignore -the fact is that is not necessarily the case. Computer simulations often give outputs that where not in any way defined or designed in the program itself.
-I say this as an expert in computer programming - what is your level of expertise in computer programming?-please demonstrate.
11 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"The analogy works for mutations but NOT natural selection which is NOT “pure chance” and predictably selects for whichever mutations maximise the chances of survival in the short run by selecting for those mutations that give immediate survival benefits. "
[b]…I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm! ..….
Yes -you can control the design of the algorithm but NOT necessarily the output of a simulation the algorithm makes -are you unable to compreh ...[text shortened]... at HAVE occurred -there is nothing hard to comprehend here and there is no logical problem here.[/b]
Natural selection only gets to filter that which is given to it if nothing
positive comes along it only works through the bad, the point being it
isn’t designing anything, it isn’t building anything, it is simply
screening everything that comes along and life plays them out as they
come. You seem to want to make natural selection something so
advance it automatically keeps all good mutations and from that point
on uses them to build the complexity we see in life. That is not what
happens, every mutations goes through the process, everyone gets
played out, each one is part of the process, good ones, bad ones, or
the good and bad ones that come together since mutations do not
just happen in waves of good or bad, or one at a time taking turns of
getting good ones and then bad ones, they just happen. There is also
no good designed piece of the puzzle that requires life to be able to
keep every mutation that you would call good before it can build
something good, or bad one that would do harm if it were allowed to
continue that comes along too. The immediate survival benefit can
only be that it did not kill off the species, but allows it to live another
generation, it isn’t like an eye was formed in one generation or a
brain could be either.
Kelly
11 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou really do not understand this do you!
[b]…You build it to get an output and
you get an output by design;
..….
As many of us have repeatedly told you and which you simply ignore -the fact is that is not necessarily the case. Computer simulations often give outputs that where not in any way defined or designed in the program itself.
-I say this as an expert in computer programming - what is your level of expertise in computer programming?-please demonstrate.[/b]
You want to tell me that your programs do not give you the outputs
they are designed to give by the program you designed. What you
are saying here is that your programs are giving you outputs that
were not built into the program design to give, instead the results of
your programs are completely foreign to how you designed your
program, that is quite amazing.
Kelly
11 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"Natural selection makes only “mindless-choices” (so “choices” is really totally the right word here) but non of those “mindless-choices” are “bad choices” in the very short run (because they always give immediate benefit in the short run else they would not be selected) and in the very narrow sense that those that are selected are those mutations that give survival benefits even although some may lead to design flaws either in the long run or may even be immediate design flaws (despite increasing the chances of survival in the sort run!) because there could have been an even better mutation that could give a better design with no flaws but, by chance, that better mutation never took place. And natural selection isn’t a random process and it still eliminates all the bad mutations with time in favour for the best ones that HAVE occurred -there is nothing hard to comprehend here and there is no logical problem here."
[b]…I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm! ..….
Yes -you can control the design of the algorithm but NOT necessarily the output of a simulation the algorithm makes -are you unable to compreh ...[text shortened]... at HAVE occurred -there is nothing hard to comprehend here and there is no logical problem here.[/b]
No, "choices" was a bad CHOICE of words on my part, that is the
trouble with looking at something that appears to be designed.
Natural selection does not pick the best mutation it only weeds out
that which harms to the point of death or creates a disadvantage so
bad the normal course of life will end it.
Kelly
11 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayTo someone with no understanding of programming maybe. Look at a good chess program, Rybka, say. The programmers can no more predict what moves it will generate than the man in the moon, the program can go into territory not considered by the programmers which is why computers are such a powerful tool. If a programmer could predict all the outcomes then all it would take would be to have a thousand programmers working together and probably beat the program at its own game. That isn't even close to what really happens.
You really do not understand this do you!
You want to tell me that your programs do not give you the outputs
they are designed to give by the program you designed. What you
are saying here is that your programs are giving you outputs that
were not built into the program design to give, instead the results of
your programs are completely foreign to how you designed your
program, that is quite amazing.
Kelly
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseGreat example, chess programs give us what, chess moves.
To someone with no understanding of programming maybe. Look at a good chess program, Rybka, say. The programmers can no more predict what moves it will generate than the man in the moon, the program can go into territory not considered by the programmers which is why computers are such a powerful tool. If a programmer could predict all the outcomes then all ...[text shortened]... er and probably beat the program at its own game. That isn't even close to what really happens.
So does that mean that chess players do not have a plan, purpose,
or design to their moves. 🙂
Kelly
12 Oct 08
KellyJay, do you really think that other creationists, or everyday christians, agree with you?
Please, KJ, give up this line of reasoning. Give up now so people don't find christians are stupid in general.
Give up, and accept that you have learned something in the process.
12 Oct 08
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay…Natural selection only gets to filter that which is given to it if nothing
"The analogy works for mutations but NOT natural selection which is NOT “pure chance” and predictably selects for whichever mutations maximise the chances of survival in the short run by selecting for those mutations that give immediate survival benefits. "
Natural selection only gets to filter that which is given to it if nothing
positive comes along i ...[text shortened]... eration, it isn’t like an eye was formed in one generation or a
brain could be either.
Kelly
positive comes along it only works through the bad, the point being it
isn’t designing anything,
..….
Firstly, are you now implying that ALL mutations that natural selection works on are bad? -if so, what possible logical reason can there be for this?
Secondly, within the modern era, some insects have evolved resistance to insecticide -so their biochemistry has clearly been designed by evolution to be resistant to insecticide -so obviously this is proof that evolution CAN design things.
-But what you appear to be saying here is “Natural selection isn’t designing anything” -well, natural selection is not the whole process of evolution but one-half of it, the other half being mutations, so, yes, “natural selection ALONE isn’t designing anything” if that is what you mean -it needs to work in conjunction with the other half of the process of evolution to disign things which is the occasional mutation -so what is your point here? -I mean it is clearly still true that “EVOLUTION designs things” -yes? -else how did those insects evolve a biochemistry that gave them resistance to insecticides?
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJay…I am not disputing the output of your “designed” program is the result
“Yes -you can control the design of the algorithm but NOT necessarily the output of a simulation the algorithm makes -are you unable to comprehend the simple difference between an “algorithm” and the “output of the simulation the algorithm makes“? “
I am not disputing the output of your “designed” program is the result
of an algorithms which have random ...[text shortened]... mulate something simple as
a coin flip I'd agree with you, but it isn't the samething.
Kelly
of an algorithms which have randomness to them! I’m not disputing
there are random inputs RANDOM INPUTS to mimic what you, “BELIEVE” are part of life
..…. (my emphasis)
Those “RANDOM INPUTS” that you speak of are to mimic random mutations.
I “BELIEVE” that random mutations exist because it is a scientific fact that they exist -are you now denying that even these random mutations exist!? -if so -explain.
12 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasJust so you know, I'm not going to be responding to you if at all ever
KellyJay, do you really think that other creationists, or everyday christians, agree with you?
Please, KJ, give up this line of reasoning. Give up now so people don't find christians are stupid in general.
Give up, and accept that you have learned something in the process.
again. I think you are a complete loser, you almost never add
anything to any discussion except when you do so by accident I
believe. You insult me and others more than you actually use your
brain to get involved, so if you want to continue responding to me,
please do so, but I doubt I'll be responding to you. Wish you well,
and hope you have a nice life.
Kelly
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThank you, KJ, you're very nice.
Just so you know, I'm not going to be responding to you if at all ever
again. I think you are a complete loser, you almost never add
anything to any discussion except when you do so by accident I
believe. You insult me and others more than you actually use your
brain to get involved, so if you want to continue responding to me,
please do so, but I doubt I'll be responding to you. Wish you well,
and hope you have a nice life.
Kelly
but in science you don't know very much, you know. It's actually is a friendly advice to not pretending to know more than you actually do know. It's very easy to think that every christian is as stubborn and anti-science as you are. Very few other christians agree with you, but yet you continue to argue that you think as every other christian do.
The personal christian friends I have are much more humble in their appearance. They are not against science, moreover, they use the result of science to enrich their view about the creation of god.
Why deny evolution as a part of the creation? This parti is the most entriguing of all, because it involves the creation and development of plants and animals from day one after the first evidence of life.
God didn't create every form of life on earth, one by one, he created the first life and let them evolve of their own. Miraculously! That's the most fantastic of it all!
But you reduce it to a mere design of one and each of specie of life. Aren't you afraid of what will happen to you on the ultimate day? Will you go up, despite your denial of evolution, or will the devil himself welcome you for your effort to desinform you brothers and sisters on earth?
Don't deny evolution, don't deny science, KJ, as a friendly advice, you are denying god himself!
12 Oct 08
Why deny evolution as a part of the creation?
Try reading this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%202:%201%20-%2011;&version=49;
Assuming what you read is a true account, how was the wine in the story created? If a scientist were able to get a sample of that wine and determined that it was indeed wine, how would the scientist suppose it was made? What process was undertaken to create the wine?