08 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeDoes increasing the size of a random distribution really correspond to increased complexity?
yes
The point of the four (numbered) questions was to set up the following two questions. (#5 was not a question)
At what point does yes become no?
Are there signs of increasing complexity in this progression?
Saying no to #5 (keep on adding marbles and ask the same question) means you refuse to keep on adding marbles and ask the same question ...[text shortened]... ays be no because the level of complexity will not decrease with more numbers, it will increase.
09 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeSince you are the one adding the marbles and asking the question
Saying no to #5 (keep on adding marbles and ask the same question) means you refuse to keep on adding marbles and ask the same question. #5 is an instruction, not a question.
the statement "keep on adding marbles and ask the same question"
obviously applied to you.
My answer was in response to you keep on asking the same question.
If you want to set something up ... do it properly.
09 Jan 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI don't know. But if there are different kinds of complexity then why does it matter? It was an idea I haven't actually explored, but even if increased complexity can be demonstrated I doubt it could be sustained by simply increasing the numbers.
Does increasing the size of a random distribution really correspond to increased complexity?
According to C Hess DNA is completely different than a computer program because it can change, and is therefore is not complex in the same way a computer program is complex. This seems to be the crux of his argument against comparing DNA to programming... DNA just happens to do what it does, and if what it does happens to work in our favor then good for us.
09 Jan 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtJust to be clear, we actually need to look at any number of random distributions of a particular number of marbles. If you change the question to how many configurations are possible:
Does increasing the size of a random distribution really correspond to increased complexity?
For one marble the answer is one.
For two marbles the answer is one.
After two there appear to be an increasing number of configurations...
Three marbles can generate two different configurations (a triangle or line)
Four marbles can generate four different configurations (quadrangle, triangle, triangle and line, or line)
And so on...
Looking at it this way I can expect to see signs of increasing complexity in the variation (and combination) of shapes... more marbles would mean more variations (and possible combinations). I'd have to look at 5 marbles to see if maybe this increase is exponential or not, but I'll look at that later (with pen and paper in hand).
09 Jan 15
Originally posted by wolfgang59Did you look at the extra credit question?
Since you are the one adding the marbles and asking the question
the statement "keep on adding marbles and ask the same question"
obviously applied to you.
My answer was in response to you keep on asking the same question.
If you want to set something up ... do it properly.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
09 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIf by complexity you mean a lot of non-interacting marbles thrown on a floor and what geometric forms you can describe by connecting the marble dots, pretty much anything in the world is complex. Is there a point to this experiment?
Different kinds of complexity.
[This is not meant to be an argument. But maybe it can illustrate a different [b]kind of complexity...]
The test begins.... now.
1. If I drop a marble on the floor, will it always form a single point?
2. If I drop 2 marbles on the floor, will they always form a line?
3. If I drop 3 marbles on the floor, will ...[text shortened]... ty in this progression?
extra credit: which one of the above is not a question?[/b]
09 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIt's very obviously not exponential .. not that you understand "exponential".
Just to be clear, we actually need to look at any number of random distributions of a particular number of marbles. If you change the question to how many configurations are possible:
For one marble the answer is one.
For two marbles the answer is one.
After two there appear to be an increasing number of configurations...
Three marbles can gener ...[text shortened]... e this increase is exponential or not, but I'll look at that later (with pen and paper in hand).
09 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeI have two refrigerators, but I like the big one with the ice and water dispenser on the freezer door. I don't really have to change the water filter if I am satisfied with the water quality from the tap. But my wife will not drank tap water. So this cuts down on buying so much bottled water. As soon as the green light changes to yellow or red she is constantly reminding me to change the filter or get bottled water.
My refrigerator is designed better than yours... it doesn't need a water filter.
09 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessIt would be fine with me if you evolutionists would stop making claims that you know what happened in the past. 😏
At least different forms of random DNA altering mutations has been observed. Have you observed your god writing any code of late? See, it bugs the hell out of you that we "evolutionists" makes no claim whatsoever to know what is yet unknown. We simply note that the theory of evolution is consistent with all the evidence we have so far, and that ID is not. Is ...[text shortened]... ors) that absolutely could not have come about through evolution. Just one, is all I'll ask for.
Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution
09 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe Bombardier Beetle is interesting but you can educate yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85SW3A3XVwQ
here: http://ncse.com/cej/2/1/bombardier-beetle-myth-exploded.
BUT
At 8:30
Evolutionists cannot explain how a giraffe knows the difference between a lion and a zebra!!!
I stopped watching after that.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe refrigerator needs a hidden "husband opt-out" button that leaves the light green. Intelligent design. But if she finds out, she might opt you out.
I have two refrigerators, but I like the big one with the ice and water dispenser on the freezer door. I don't really have to change the water filter if I am satisfied with the water quality from the tap. But my wife will not drank tap water. So this cuts down on buying so much bottled water. As soon as the green light changes to yellow or red she is constantly reminding me to change the filter or get bottled water.
10 Jan 15
Originally posted by C HessYou don't seem to understand that mutations are like a random error occurring in a DNA program nor do you understand computer programming. Just because an error in a computer program does not cause it to crash does not mean it becomes a better program than that of the original designed computer program. It would be stupid to suggest that random errors occurring in a computer program means it is rewriting itself to make improvements. That just doesn't happen nor does it happen in DNA programming.
It can if the "program" is DNA inside a cell. It's called mutations, and it's been observed to happen. Next question.
10 Jan 15
Originally posted by C HessObviously, I am confident in my belief in Jesus as the creator or else I would abandon it. 😏
If the program in question is DNA inside a cell, then it can mutate naturally in different ways (information can be added, altered and removed, through gene duplication, copying errors and RecLOH - and many other mutational variations). This is programming, of sorts. There's no intelligent programmer, which is evident when you consider the randomness of the c ...[text shortened]... tional results. I feel confident about the evolutionary viewpoint. Obviously, or I'd abandon it.