Jump to content


Photo

Darwin's Glaring Omission


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,256 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 27 October 2016 - 01:18 PM

When Darwin first wrote his Origin of Species, his evolutionary theory, technology was in its infancy. There was no computer. Too bad for Darwin. Why?

If you have a sophisticated piece of engineering like the human body you need software to control it.

Humans walk around on two legs. That is not as easy as one might imagine because
a whole lot of computing power is needed to coordinate the muscles that keep the body from falling over. Indeed all of us have witnessed someone faint. The software that controls their body position ceases to function and the person falls over.

It's apparent and self-evident that the human needs software--a set of instructions to coordinate all the complex functions that occurr in the body. Just the feeding of 100 trillion cells is no small task. Try cooking dinner for 100,000 individual cells and you will see the necessity of a very complex software system to take care of just that one function--let alone the millions of other functions going on in the body at the same time.

But Darwinian evolution has no mechanism for the evolution of the software that controls any known features that have allegedly evolved. Indeed when we bring up the glaring error -- missing software -- we get silence. Are there no evo's with enough courage to respond?

Many scientists realize that there is not enough genetic code in the cell to code for human personality, language skills--no not even the ability to walk. A far more difficult task--learning accounts for these achievements in the human being.

Soon after birth a baby learns to crawl and then he starts learning how to walk--usually with the aid of his parents. Then he learns how to talk and begins to develop a personality--all this after birth.

The human mind body configuration to a large extentis self programming--a feat that computer programmers would like to achieve in what is called artificial intelligence--the ability to learn.

Evolutionists are curiously silent when it comes to the software that runs in the human 0brain--How did it write itself? They have no mechanism for the evolution of our software via small steps.







 



#2 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy
  • Age: 54
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Southern NY State

Posted 20 November 2016 - 03:34 PM

Artificial Intelligence is not consciousness

#3 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,256 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 23 November 2016 - 04:30 AM

Well, long time no see.

I Never said AI was conscious. And that's part of the problem.

Computers will do what they are programmed to do by an intelligent peogrammer. Therefore, "code" does not have a conscious and can do harm deftly.

It's not the gun that kills people but people use guns to kill each other. We think, emote and behave--usually in that order. A gun has no morality or conscious. It does what it's preprogrammed to do when its trigger is pulled by an intelligent individual.

Humans come fully equipped with emotional reference points both desirable and undesirable. Thinking is the key trigger of emotion. Thus we are self rewarding and self-publishing beings.

The deception that most people acept is that external stimuli usually present in the environment is the cause of their emotional disturbance. That's a deception.

We come out of the womb with basic software aimed more at supporting the physical body initially then creating the human mind. We don't have enough genetic code in our gene genome to code for language or human personality. We are learners--self programmers. Additionally, our software does not allow us to duplicate each other. We can physically be clones (identical twins) but that has never resulted in duplicate personalities. Our software does not allow that to happen.

Since we are self programming "computers"
we have a marvelous ability to reason or think. Not only can we think but we can do multilevel thinking and think about our thinking.

Thinking is the essence of practicing science. "Given a cause what its effect will be and given an effect what its most likely cause was." When we reason, we are practicing science. Note that I am not saying that science is an entity. Unfortunately, peopler often attribute magical qualities to the reasoning peocwss when they personify their thinking. Science (reasoning) is not an entity. Science is only a description of our inate ability to reason. It has no volition.

Since we are made in the image of God, we have many of his characteristics. Our human mind is set up to be creative. However, unlike God we are finite sources of information. Nevertheless, we are creators.

Everything that comes out of our mind is something that was recorded by the mind or was synthesized and created from information stored in our mind. There seems to be no limit on what we can create.

However, our creative ability does not necessarily mean we can cause things to exist that we created in our mind--to manifest them in the external world. There are limits. As Jesus said, "Which one of you taking thought can add one qubit (18 inches) to your stature."

As a therapist I have often asked my clients what their belief in God is? Over the years I realized that one's view of God reflects one's control quotient. Starting with agnostics and then going to alleged atheists, religious fanatics, and terrorists the answer to my question about God lets me know how much of a control freak my client may be. I can then formulate a deconstruction agenda to teach my clients to give up being so demanding. Demandingness is the essence of human disturbance. We simply don't control other beings and the environment.

Think about this: There are 7 billion people on the planet at this point in time. Some scientists estimate that there have been over 100 billion being since mankind first walked the planet. What percentage of people does the average person know? It is estimated that every person will know less than 2500 people. That's a lot of beimgs not to know. Claiming then to know that there is no being called God exposes the ill logic of such a conclusion. If we can't name all the people that exists on planet earth how can we claim to know who does not exist in the entirety entirety of the universe?

There are people, however, that claim to know there is no God. They can do this by using their creativity. They simply create the idea there is no God and then choose to believe their own public relations.

We are not all-knowing. When we have been shown the the ill logic of our conclusions and we hold to our claims to know who can or can't exist, we are being demanding and self-righteous. Unfortunately, this reasoning pattern is transferred to other areas of our reasoning also.

If the alleged atheists claims there is no God will he transfer that claim to other beings? Indeed he he or she most likely will. And most likely it will be an uneven application. For example, I argued with several alleged atheists on the site about Adolf Hitler being an agent of evolution. They argued that he was a creationist and that I didn't understand evolution According to them, Adolf Hitler actually impeded evolution by killing so many.

Fast-forward. When I brought up the fact that there were 1.5 billion babies aborted since 1980 atheists/ evoitiomosts were silent as to so many being eliminated from the gene pool.

Here is the incongruency: Evolution is supposed to be an established fact. If that's the case then all things that happened in the past had to contribute logically to evolution. Nothing in the past could have thwarted evolution.

The only other possibility I know to bring us, the plants and animals into existence is is an intelligemt creator. So, which is it to be? Were we created or did we evolve? If we evolved Hitler was an agent of evolution ("it" evolved him). That only makes sense and logically follows.







 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#4 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,256 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 03 January 2017 - 03:56 PM

What the richest man in the world knows that evo's don't.

When IBM decided to get into the PC buisness, they realized that they would cast a big shadow on the industry. Rumor has it that rather than write their own software, a job they easily could have done, they decided to cotract it out. They didn't wish to be attacked for being a mmonpoly.

The story goess that there were two operating systems they were considering--C/PM (Control Program Monitor) And Microsoft DOS. C/PM offered greater efficiancy u\sing only 64k RAM. Microsoft was limited to arround 600k. According to the story the guy from C/PM missed his plane and so IBM decided to go with Gate's Mircosolft operating system. Voila! Gates became the richest man in the world.

The computer would be useless without software to operate. So would the human brain. The brain prcesses 4000 billion bits of data per second and only 2000 bits of that is deemed important enought to make conscience.

Software that has the ability to learn--brilliant! But stilll no evo mechanism to evolve and update software each time a new novel feature "evolved"?

Ask anyone that is paralized the importanmce of the spinal cord that carry's computed information to contrrol the muscles. And then there is sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, plus the emotions. Our software multi-tasks in the millions.

At any one time 300 million cells die in the body and so there is a subroutine to dispose of them without us being aware of it. Our software provides a GPS to orient us correctly in a geographic plane. We can simulate Cause and effect scenarios which allows us to decide if it it is safe to crooss the street.

Darwin wasn't thinking of all the things that would have to evolve and update. Sure a lot of small steps can build a tall building when intelligennce "guides" its construction.

When the 100 floor John Hancock building was built in downtown Chicago they opened a fancy resturan on the 95th floor. They put chandaliers on chains that hung from the ceilings. On windy days the building was designed to "sway" 2 feet back and forth causing the chandoliers to act like pendulims. Patrons were getting nausiated while they ate. But since we can learn, the solution was to remove and replace the chandoliers with fixed lighting.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users