Jump to content


Photo

Entropy


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
186 replies to this topic

#41 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 16 March 2012 - 07:39 AM

Altheas, your attempted address of my comment, in no way refuted it. You simply attempted to brush it aside by admitting design with the “But” excuse! In fact, the “oversimplification” argument you are attempting to use is a rabbit trail you are trying to go down instead of actually addressing your fallacy.


As a side note: It's Athelas as in the herb used in the lord of the rings trilogy to heal Frodo after being stabbed by the fell blade.

Well, I have the same feeling about your equation of computer is designed so that's all there is to it conclusion of earlier. At least I'm trying to make an effort to explain myself and give examples. Feel free to explore the genetic algorythm and prove me wrong.


The “programmers” (programmers by definition use “a system of procedures or activities that has a specific purpose”) input information into a system in order to achieve a particular outcome. IF they don’t get the predicted outcome, they correct the programming or mechanism until they DO get the intended outcome. In other words, if you open your Dell computer and wait for a predicted outcome; if you don’t get the predicted outcome, you either fix your computer, OR you send it in to get fixed. You don’t accept “randomness” in the application of your computers output, you want a determinate outcome.


Interesting that you are trying to tell me what I do for a living.

"IF they don’t get the predicted outcome, they correct the programming or mechanism until they DO get the intended outcome."

In some cases like visualisations or mathematical calculations, yes you do (you can do this because you can calculate what you should get on your screen). In the case of behaviour, certainly in complexer systems, you cannot always predict an outcome and you will debug a part of the program (see what it does during runtime depending at the values of the variables during that run).

" if you open your Dell computer and wait for a predicted outcome"

What does that even mean?

The outcome, the result, isn't predicted in the case of genetic algorythm. There are conditions set (fitness condition) but how the population survives that condition isn't predicted in advance and more than one outcome is possible.

"You don’t accept “randomness” in the application of your computers output, you want a determinate outcome. "

There is randomness in the mechanisms of the genetic algorythm (if you do not believe me, I once again urge you or anyone else to simply not take my word for it but look it up). The output while not predicted, has to fulfill the fitness condition either fully or to some acceptable degree. But what that outcome is, doesn't matter.

#42 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:53 PM

" You actually can create order that way as evolutionary computing clearly demonstrates but as I said: I do not vouch for it happening in real life (or having happened (?)). I only posted it as a possibility. I think I made that clear on numerous occasions."- Athelas

So you can "create order" on a computer but not in reality... I can make a video of me flying on a computer does that also transfer to reality too? You do realise that what we do on a computer is not indicative of reality itself hence your entire point is moot and doesn't prove what you say it does, since it has no basis in reality... Rather in Athelas' computer world..

#43 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 17 March 2012 - 05:27 AM

" You actually can create order that way as evolutionary computing clearly demonstrates but as I said: I do not vouch for it happening in real life (or having happened (?)). I only posted it as a possibility. I think I made that clear on numerous occasions."- Athelas

So you can "create order" on a computer but not in reality... I can make a video of me flying on a computer does that also transfer to reality too? You do realise that what we do on a computer is not indicative of reality itself hence your entire point is moot and doesn't prove what you say it does, since it has no basis in reality... Rather in Athelas' computer world..


Let me clear things up for you:

1) We observe nature. We come up with the theory of evolution which is devided into different mechanisms: mutations, inheritence, natural selection, genetic drift...

2) We invent computers that become more powerful (Moore's Law) and we develop better ways to create applications (high-level software languages).

3) We use both 1 and 2 to create a field called evolutionary computing. Why? Well because we can and because people are curious. This also leads to integrating the mechanisms of evolution into the genetic algorythm.

4) We succesfully use 3 to solve problems.

Out of all that I conclude that the mechanisms of evolution are able to create order in a controlled environment like a computer. This does not say anything about whether or not the theory of evolution works in nature or whether is doesn't work (because we do not have meteor strikes on computers and because we can start over but life can't - I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of controlled environments) but then again, it doesn't need to because the theory of evolution is already established and we have other means to test it. My only point about this example is that those mechanisms can be used to create order.

My example goes from science (theory of evolution) to computer while your example goes from computer to reality so it really is a bad comparison. The step back from computer to reality is a step I never took (on the contrary I repeatedly stated the opposite) and thus you are trying to put claims into my mouth that I didn't make with the sole purpose of winning this argument.

#44 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2012 - 06:24 AM

Let me clear things up for you:

1) We observe nature. We come up with the theory of evolution which is devided into different mechanisms: mutations, inheritence, natural selection, genetic drift...

2) We invent computers that become more powerful (Moore's Law) and we develop better ways to create applications (high-level software languages).

3) We use both 1 and 2 to create a field called evolutionary computing. Why? Well because we can and because people are curious. This also leads to integrating the mechanisms of evolution into the genetic algorythm.

4) We succesfully use 3 to solve problems.

Out of all that I conclude that the mechanisms of evolution are able to create order in a controlled environment like a computer. This does not say anything about whether or not the theory of evolution works in nature or whether is doesn't work (because we do not have meteor strikes on computers and because we can start over but life can't - I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of controlled environments) but then again, it doesn't need to because the theory of evolution is already established and we have other means to test it. My only point about this example is that those mechanisms can be used to create order.

My example goes from science (theory of evolution) to computer while your example goes from computer to reality so it really is a bad comparison. The step back from computer to reality is a step I never took (on the contrary I repeatedly stated the opposite) and thus you are trying to put claims into my mouth that I didn't make with the sole purpose of winning this argument.

Let me clear things up for you:

1) We observe nature. We come up with the theory of evolution which is devided into different mechanisms: mutations, inheritence, natural selection, genetic drift...

2) We invent computers that become more powerful (Moore's Law) and we develop better ways to create applications (high-level software languages).

3) We use both 1 and 2 to create a field called evolutionary computing. Why? Well because we can and because people are curious. This also leads to integrating the mechanisms of evolution into the genetic algorythm.

4) We succesfully use 3 to solve problems.

Out of all that I conclude that the mechanisms of evolution are able to create order in a controlled environment like a computer. This does not say anything about whether or not the theory of evolution works in nature or whether is doesn't work (because we do not have meteor strikes on computers and because we can start over but life can't - I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of controlled environments) but then again, it doesn't need to because the theory of evolution is already established and we have other means to test it. My only point about this example is that those mechanisms can be used to create order.

My example goes from science (theory of evolution) to computer while your example goes from computer to reality so it really is a bad comparison. The step back from computer to reality is a step I never took (on the contrary I repeatedly stated the opposite) and thus you are trying to put claims into my mouth that I didn't make with the sole purpose of winning this argument.



And as I said earlier, just because you can make an equation doesn't mean it is transferred to reality.



What sorts of problems are solved via this method?

Consider that the method of find a solution, modify the solution to be better is as old as the hills and thus is not influenced by evolution. It is merely a way people improve things... (Like science / technology itself... otherwise we'd never have new versions of computers, new weapons, new anything etc)... Therefore this method has nothing to do with evolution, since it has existed long before Darwin. (Just because it is called "evolutionary" means nothing, in the same way evolution is attached to micro evolution).

Further I also asked where do the values for the things in your point 1 come from... What is the value given to mutation, what about selection or drift... Where do these values come from?

#45 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 17 March 2012 - 07:00 AM

1. And as I said earlier, just because you can make an equation doesn't mean it is transferred to reality.

2. What sorts of problems are solved via this method?

3. Consider that the method of find a solution, modify the solution to be better is as old as the hills and thus is not influenced by evolution. It is merely a way people improve things... (Like science / technology itself... otherwise we'd never have new versions of computers, new weapons, new anything etc)... Therefore this method has nothing to do with evolution, since it has existed long before Darwin. (Just because it is called "evolutionary" means nothing, in the same way evolution is attached to micro evolution).

4. Further I also asked where do the values for the things in your point 1 come from... What is the value given to mutation, what about selection or drift... Where do these values come from?


1. I have never said anything to the contrary.

2. Look it up.

3. I don't really see how this relates to the discussion. The idea to find better solutions to problems has indeed nothing to do with evolution. It is just good practise imo.

4. I did answer that question to the best of my knowledge. If my answer wasn't satisfactory, look it up online.

#46 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2012 - 08:16 AM

1. I have never said anything to the contrary.

2. Look it up.

3. I don't really see how this relates to the discussion. The idea to find better solutions to problems has indeed nothing to do with evolution. It is just good practise imo.

4. I did answer that question to the best of my knowledge. If my answer wasn't satisfactory, look it up online.

1. I have never said anything to the contrary.

2. Look it up.

3. I don't really see how this relates to the discussion. The idea to find better solutions to problems has indeed nothing to do with evolution. It is just good practise imo.

4. I did answer that question to the best of my knowledge. If my answer wasn't satisfactory, look it up online.


1. Then why even bring up "evolutionary computing" when we are discussing REALITY in the first place. Either you are indirectly claiming what I said, or you are attempting to change the parameters of the discussion.

2. No I am asking you to provide what real-world problems this solves... (If there are none indicative of reality then this entire discussion is moot)

3. It means that the claims of variation and selection, in terms of solving problems, really have nothing to do with evolution since such things have already been utilised before evolution was even conceived. As I said arbitrarily claiming something as X proves nothing.

4. No you didn't... No actual answer was given. Just diplomatic waffle.



To clarify I am only interested in things applicable to reality since I can make up a million imaginary things, yet they will all have no significance since they have no ties to reality. This isn't to say that all abstract things are useless, it is to say that it has no weight in this discussion.

#47 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 17 March 2012 - 11:02 AM

1. Then why even bring up "evolutionary computing" when we are discussing REALITY in the first place. Either you are indirectly claiming what I said, or you are attempting to change the parameters of the discussion.

2. No I am asking you to provide what real-world problems this solves... (If there are none indicative of reality then this entire discussion is moot)

3. It means that the claims of variation and selection, in terms of solving problems, really have nothing to do with evolution since such things have already been utilised before evolution was even conceived. As I said arbitrarily claiming something as X proves nothing.

4. No you didn't... No actual answer was given. Just diplomatic waffle.



To clarify I am only interested in things applicable to reality since I can make up a million imaginary things, yet they will all have no significance since they have no ties to reality. This isn't to say that all abstract things are useless, it is to say that it has no weight in this discussion.


Because I thought, silly me, that it might be interesting to show people how computer engineers use the mechanisms of evolution to solve complex problems. I doubt I will ever again do anything else of the like as you are clearly not interested to investigate this and only try to put words into my mouth that I have never claimed about it. As far as I am considered this conversation stops here. We talked about entropy, which was the main focus of the topic, that's finished, and I don't feel like having and endless game of repeating myself.

If you want the answers to your question, use the web for what it is intended.

#48 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2012 - 12:16 PM

Because I thought, silly me, that it might be interesting to show people how computer engineers use the mechanisms of evolution to solve complex problems. I doubt I will ever again do anything else of the like as you are clearly not interested to investigate this and only try to put words into my mouth that I have never claimed about it. As far as I am considered this conversation stops here. We talked about entropy, which was the main focus of the topic, that's finished, and I don't feel like having and endless game of repeating myself.

If you want the answers to your question, use the web for what it is intended.


I'd like to see what words I have put in your mouth... Have I made any unsupported quotes. All I have done is taken what you have written and shown how it has no bearing at the conversation at hand, thus there was the 2 potential reasons I gave... This is not putting words in your mouth, it is showing potential explanations for your words which have no place bearing on the conversation.

I did ask where you get the specific values and your response said NOTHING about the values given. You gave 2 paragraphs to this so 2 paragraphs that do not address the question.... its a fair call to claim this as waffle.



What you fail to realise is that you program the computer scenarios to do what you want them to do... Yet in reality this is not the case. There are many cases of organs or systems, (particularly cellular systems), that require multiple parts "evolve" at the same time.. This defies the bit-by-bit progression of evolution... all the while the organism needs to stay alive, something that is not calculated in these computer scenarios...

(I am repeating myself here) I it circular that you claim that evolutionary computer programs can create order from chaos when it requires a programmer to do so. This is the major flaw in this logic and is why your analogy doesn't "compute".

#49 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 17 March 2012 - 09:02 PM

What you fail to realise is that you program the computer scenarios to do what you want them to do... Yet in reality this is not the case.


I do not fail to realize that at all. That's basically why you go from a scientific model (or reality as we try to explain it) to an environment which we can influence and code. That's also why I did not make the step in the other direction, from what can be simulated to reality.

Btw what do you equate those computer scenarios to 'in reality'? Because computer scenarios do exist in reality and we can change them. But I guess you mean that we cannot change the laws of nature? Even though you have claimed that scientists can bend them... So what is it exactly what you mean here? FYI I also never said that we code reality in those programs. We code the mechanisms of evolution which is science and thus those mechanisms are described which means we can code their behaviour as described by the theory.

(I am repeating myself here) I it circular that you claim that evolutionary computer programs can create order from chaos when it requires a programmer to do so. This is the major flaw in this logic and is why your analogy doesn't "compute".


Evolutionary computer programs can create order. That is an established fact. It is also an established fact that computer programs do not write themselves. You need someone to write that code. The only question here is whether or not you use the mechanisms of evolution to get to that order. Since the computer engineer will create the application and will make sure that all of its individual functions and events mimic the behaviour as described by the theory of evolution, you are using the mechanisms of evolution in your application. Running the application will execute those functions and events that mimic that behaviour to get from 'chaos' to 'order'.

Please explain to me why this is circular and where my logic fails me when I say it is both design (computer engineer) but also using the mechanisms of evolution and be specific please because I am also repeating myself and you never specifically said where I made a wrong step or why.

#50 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2012 - 09:57 PM

1. I do not fail to realize that at all. That's basically why you go from a scientific model (or reality as we try to explain it) to an environment which we can influence and code.

2. That's also why I did not make the step in the other direction, from what can be simulated to reality.

3. Btw what do you equate those computer scenarios to 'in reality'? Because computer scenarios do exist in reality and we can change them. But I guess you mean that we cannot change the laws of nature? Even though you have claimed that scientists can bend them... So what is it exactly what you mean here? FYI

4. I also never said that we code reality in those programs. We code the mechanisms of evolution which is science and thus those mechanisms are described which means we can code their behaviour as described by the theory.



5. Evolutionary computer programs can create order. That is an established fact. It is also an established fact that computer programs do not write themselves. You need someone to write that code. The only question here is whether or not you use the mechanisms of evolution to get to that order. Since the computer engineer will create the application and will make sure that all of its individual functions and events mimic the behaviour as described by the theory of evolution, you are using the mechanisms of evolution in your application. Running the application will execute those functions and events that mimic that behaviour to get from 'chaos' to 'order'.

6. Please explain to me why this is circular and where my logic fails me when I say it is both design (computer engineer) but also using the mechanisms of evolution and be specific please because I am also repeating myself and you never specifically said where I made a wrong step or why.


1. A scientific model is a far cry from actual reality... Just because you THINK it is reality, doesn't make it so. Perhaps stick to reality itself, ie- things you can directly observe. This is what I said about basing stuff on what we assume reality to be, obviously my point has been lost on you.

2. Then why bring it up?....

3. Computer worlds etc allow programmers to create and redefine the worlds laws at will. I can defy gravity in Gilboland, I can program it so that every "thing" in Gilboland is my slave. How is this indicitive of reality... It seems that you say that you do not claim these programs to equal reality or be representations of reality, yet you ask why I do not think they are... Hence to ask such a thing is to actually think that they are representations of reality, despite what you claim.

4. Again I ask why do you bring it up... If it doesn't pertain to reality, then I can claim in Gilboland I can create stars...

5. What would you claim is "order"... As I said way back, (something you obviously have skipped over), in order for evolution to create order it would need to create NEW CODE.. There is no known mechanism that can do this genetically, (even Dawkins doesn't know and he is like a prophet to some). Hence I find it hard to swallow how "evolutionary computing" can create order from randomness, yet in reality, (where it counts), evolution is observed to do no such thing. Perhaps your "evolutionary computing" is not very indicative of evolution itself... Perhaps an evolutionists own ideal evolution scenario, (outside of reality), in other words computers allow you to stack the deck... Of which I have just shown happens, since the two do not correlate.

Furthermore, I have already said if it is not indicative of reality then it is useless in this scenario.. Remember I can do anything in Gilboland, this means jack in the real world.

6. The fact that it is programmed by programmers means that the program itself is not a true representation of evolution itself... Since it is coded to what evolutionists THINK is an ideal representation of evolution, how do you know they have it right? Furthermore as I said there is no way you can assign values to mutation and selection since they are either wholly or partially random and thus are unknowns. This ensures that the program is not a true representation of evolution, just an idealized version of it.

#51 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 17 March 2012 - 11:00 PM

1. A scientific model is a far cry from actual reality... Just because you THINK it is reality, doesn't make it so. Perhaps stick to reality itself, ie- things you can directly observe. This is what I said about basing stuff on what we assume reality to be, obviously my point has been lost on you.

2. Then why bring it up?....

3. Computer worlds etc allow programmers to create and redefine the worlds laws at will. I can defy gravity in Gilboland, I can program it so that every "thing" in Gilboland is my slave. How is this indicitive of reality... It seems that you say that you do not claim these programs to equal reality or be representations of reality, yet you ask why I do not think they are... Hence to ask such a thing is to actually think that they are representations of reality, despite what you claim.

4. Again I ask why do you bring it up... If it doesn't pertain to reality, then I can claim in Gilboland I can create stars...

5. What would you claim is "order"... As I said way back, (something you obviously have skipped over), in order for evolution to create order it would need to create NEW CODE.. There is no known mechanism that can do this genetically, (even Dawkins doesn't know and he is like a prophet to some). Hence I find it hard to swallow how "evolutionary computing" can create order from randomness, yet in reality, (where it counts), evolution is observed to do no such thing. Perhaps your "evolutionary computing" is not very indicative of evolution itself... Perhaps an evolutionists own ideal evolution scenario, (outside of reality), in other words computers allow you to stack the deck... Of which I have just shown happens, since the two do not correlate.

5.2 Furthermore, I have already said if it is not indicative of reality then it is useless in this scenario.. Remember I can do anything in Gilboland, this means jack in the real world.

6. The fact that it is programmed by programmers means that the program itself is not a true representation of evolution itself... Since it is coded to what evolutionists THINK is an ideal representation of evolution, how do you know they have it right? Furthermore as I said there is no way you can assign values to mutation and selection since they are either wholly or partially random and thus are unknowns. This ensures that the program is not a true representation of evolution, just an idealized version of it.


1. Ummm... You started this thread about evolution, not me. Evolution happens to be a scientific theory.

2. Already answered this question.

3. It's a simple question really: you said that we can make the computer scenarios do what we want them to do. You so that in reality 'this' is not the case. All I ask is what you mean by 'this'. You compare computer world vs reality. In one world we can change scenarios. What do you equate them into reality as something we cannot change. But from your reply I get that the 'this' can be anything, from gravity to making everyone your slave. I asked for a clarification not your point on the claim to which I agreed.

4. Because this is a thread about evolution? Remember your opening post? If it were only about reality and not science, then what ARE we discussing about? Your opening post wasn't about reality but about science.

5. "DNA code = Order
Random mutations = Chaos

(This part I assumed you would understand on your own knowledge of evolution, I guess I was wrong)... Evolution claims new genetic code to code for the new limbs / organs / systems required to become a different species / kind... Hence evolution is claimed to be creating Order, (DNA code). An added complexity is that it supposedly does this via random mutations which would cause Chaos not Order..."

So DNA degradation would be randomness/chaos, new traits = order, right?


5.2 Yes I do remember and I also remember agreeing to it for like a few million times. I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

6. "it is coded to what evolutionists THINK is an ideal representation of evolution" No, it is coded as what the theory describes what evolution is (how it has been observed). How do you know they have it right? Does it matter? We're talking about evolution which is a scientific theory. If you want to talk about reality, or what you think happens in reality but isn't described in the scientific theory, then there is no point in 'getting it right' because everyone will have their own version of evolution in reality. We can only model it after the theory.

Like I said, it is not used to simulate evolution but to use the mechanisms to find solutions. If mutations are random, then why do you disagree that RNG are a good way to replicate their occurence? Same question for natural selection. They use a version of natural selection which takes into account that it is random but not completely random by procreating partly based upon a fitness score.

#52 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 March 2012 - 11:23 AM

1. Ummm... You started this thread about evolution, not me. Evolution happens to be a scientific theory.


No. It's actually a modern form of Hinduism trying to infiltrate it's way into Juedo - Christian science.

"Indeed, the Hindus were Spinozists 2,000 years before the birth of Spinoza, Darwinians centuries before the birth of Darwin, and evolutionists many centuries before the doctrine of evolution had been accepted by the Huxleys of our time, and before any word like evolution existed in any language of the world" - (Sir M. Monier - Williams, Professor of Sunskrit, University of Oxford)

"Blythe recognized that Darwin had been feeding from him, as from so many others, like some intellectual leech" - Andrew Bradbury

Enjoy.

#53 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 18 March 2012 - 11:56 AM

No. It's actually a modern form of Hinduism trying to infiltrate it's way into Juedo - Christian science.


Well, it seems that those Hindus succeeded then because evolution IS a scientific theory, whether or not that theory also exists in Juedo - Christian science, I do not know nor do I care.

#54 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 March 2012 - 12:06 PM

Well, it seems that those Hindus succeeded then because evolution IS a scientific theory, whether or not that theory also exists in Juedo - Christian science, I do not know nor do I care.


There is not a single theory in the world that supports the Hindu mythology of evolution. Where is this science at?


Thanks.

#55 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 18 March 2012 - 12:29 PM

There is not a single theory in the world that supports the Hindu mythology of evolution. Where is this science at?

Thanks.



Come on Jason, I have enough experience with people trying to pull this trick. Are you plainly denying that there isn't a theory of evolution in the field of biology? I honestly do not care one single bit who invented it first, where it came from and how Darwin saw it at his time, neither is that the topic of this conversation. It is nice that you are playing a game of words. Now be happy that I gave you some attention and stop playing this game.

#56 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 March 2012 - 01:13 PM

Come on Jason, I have enough experience with people trying to pull this trick. Are you plainly denying that there isn't a theory of evolution in the field of biology? I honestly do not care one single bit who invented it first, where it came from and how Darwin saw it at his time, neither is that the topic of this conversation. It is nice that you are playing a game of words. Now be happy that I gave you some attention and stop playing this game.


An empirical and observable fact that demonstrates common descent.

We know you don't care, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to mix up mythology with science and would have provided your scientific theory already.

So, you can stop playing games, wasting time, equivocating, and provide a solid scientific theory, except "Everyone knows there's a theory of evolution." Everyone's opinion isn't a theory.

Asking for a theory also isn't a trick, unless you already know there isn't one and your only recourse now is to try and reverse guilt.

Consider this a warning.



Enjoy.

#57 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 18 March 2012 - 02:36 PM

1. Ummm... You started this thread about evolution, not me. Evolution happens to be a scientific theory.

2. Already answered this question.

3. It's a simple question really: you said that we can make the computer scenarios do what we want them to do. You so that in reality 'this' is not the case. All I ask is what you mean by 'this'. You compare computer world vs reality. In one world we can change scenarios. What do you equate them into reality as something we cannot change. But from your reply I get that the 'this' can be anything, from gravity to making everyone your slave. I asked for a clarification not your point on the claim to which I agreed.

4. Because this is a thread about evolution? Remember your opening post? If it were only about reality and not science, then what ARE we discussing about? Your opening post wasn't about reality but about science.

5. "DNA code = Order
Random mutations = Chaos

(This part I assumed you would understand on your own knowledge of evolution, I guess I was wrong)... Evolution claims new genetic code to code for the new limbs / organs / systems required to become a different species / kind... Hence evolution is claimed to be creating Order, (DNA code). An added complexity is that it supposedly does this via random mutations which would cause Chaos not Order..."

So DNA degradation would be randomness/chaos, new traits = order, right?


5.2 Yes I do remember and I also remember agreeing to it for like a few million times. I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

6. "it is coded to what evolutionists THINK is an ideal representation of evolution" No, it is coded as what the theory describes what evolution is (how it has been observed). How do you know they have it right? Does it matter? We're talking about evolution which is a scientific theory. If you want to talk about reality, or what you think happens in reality but isn't described in the scientific theory, then there is no point in 'getting it right' because everyone will have their own version of evolution in reality. We can only model it after the theory.

7. Like I said, it is not used to simulate evolution but to use the mechanisms to find solutions. If mutations are random, then why do you disagree that RNG are a good way to replicate their occurence? Same question for natural selection. They use a version of natural selection which takes into account that it is random but not completely random by procreating partly based upon a fitness score.



1. I was responding to your claims about the model. (read what I quoted from you).


2. You're "answer" was accusing me of putting words in your mouth.. Something I asked you to substantiate earlier.


3. Clarification to what. I also said that in computer worlds there is no objective reality since the entire world can be changed on a whim, I figured this would be enough... Perhaps I was wrong.


4. Science is about reality!!! This is why we do EMPIRICAL experimentation to verify claims. You hope to propose that science is distinct from reality? You do realise that science itself is the study of reality to find how it works..... So you've basically defied the very concept of science itself :snapoutofit:

5. Obviously you didn't read what I wrote.. .This is why I brought it up...

"What would you claim is "order"... As I said way back, (something you obviously have skipped over), in order for evolution to create order it would need to create NEW CODE.. There is no known mechanism that can do this genetically, (even Dawkins doesn't know and he is like a prophet to some). Hence I find it hard to swallow how "evolutionary computing" can create order from randomness, yet in reality, (where it counts), evolution is observed to do no such thing. Perhaps your "evolutionary computing" is not very indicative of evolution itself... Perhaps an evolutionists own ideal evolution scenario, (outside of reality), in other words computers allow you to stack the deck... Of which I have just shown happens, since the two do not correlate.

6. Ummm yes it does matter, that is the point. You cannot arbitarily claim something as "Scientific" and then ignore the problems... giving the excuse of 'well its scientific so its ok'.... Science is about getting to the objective truth of reality... SO there cannot be multiple versions of reality according to a persons own whims since that is subjective. Science is not subjective it merely follows the evidence,

7. As I asked before solutions to what exactly. Further if it uses the supposed mechanisms of evolution then it is a representation

#58 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 19 March 2012 - 02:49 AM

We know you don't care, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to mix up mythology with science and would have provided your scientific theory already.

So, you can stop playing games, wasting time, equivocating, and provide a solid scientific theory, except "Everyone knows there's a theory of evolution." Everyone's opinion isn't a theory.

Asking for a theory also isn't a trick, unless you already know there isn't one and your only recourse now is to try and reverse guilt.

Consider this a warning.



Enjoy.


1. You joined this conversation and mixed in the mythology. Gilbo and I apparently know what is meant by the theory w/o the need of including history and mythology.

2. http://scholar.googl...ved=0CCgQgQMwAA

3. So you are denying that evolution is a scientific theory? Can you answer that question?

May I ask a warning for what? What rules have I broken?

#59 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 19 March 2012 - 11:14 AM

1. You joined this conversation and mixed in the mythology. Gilbo and I apparently know what is meant by the theory w/o the need of including history and mythology.

2. http://scholar.googl...ved=0CCgQgQMwAA

3. So you are denying that evolution is a scientific theory? Can you answer that question?

May I ask a warning for what? What rules have I broken?

  • Clear cases of equivocation, in which gilbo and I have both pointed out the empirical basis of a scientific theory and you continue to ignore.
  • This type of debate is a form of time wasting and is a dishonest way to converse with forum members that do care and you already confessed that you do not.
So, if you wish to continue in this line of conversation, then it is only fair that you provide gilbo and the readership with a valid scientific theory or concede the fact that evolution is an ideology that isn't subject to empirical testing and observation.

The Hindus also assumed evolution is true, but in the science forums, it's going to take more than evolutionists belief to promote something as a scientific theory.

I may promote my belief in God from a set of predictions and logical conclusions, but I'm not going to be dishonest and say "X" proves God because I have faith that it does. We also expect that same level of honesty from our members.


Enjoy.

#60 Athelas

Athelas

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brussels, Belgium
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brussels, Belgium

Posted 19 March 2012 - 03:48 PM

  • Clear cases of equivocation, in which gilbo and I have both pointed out the empirical basis of a scientific theory and you continue to ignore.
  • This type of debate is a form of time wasting and is a dishonest way to converse with forum members that do care and you already confessed that you do not.
So, if you wish to continue in this line of conversation, then it is only fair that you provide gilbo and the readership with a valid scientific theory or concede the fact that evolution is an ideology that isn't subject to empirical testing and observation.


I really think you do not understand my position. If you would've read this thread, you would know that I do not necessarily believe macro-evolution is true. However that doesn't make me deny the fact that at the moment, it is still considered as a scientific theory. If you do not want to consider it to be a scientific theory, by all means go ahead, but you do not need to tell me what to say or believe.

Also if you think debating with me is a waste of time, then simply don't. Same goes for Gilbo. If he thinks having a conversation with me is a waste of time, I would have no problem with him telling me and breaking it off here and now.

I provided you with a link pointing to countless papers regarding empirical testing and observation of evolution.

The Hindus also assumed evolution is true, but in the science forums, it's going to take more than evolutionists belief to promote something as a scientific theory.


And what the Hindus believed is the same as what is included in the theory on this day?

I may promote my belief in God from a set of predictions and logical conclusions, but I'm not going to be dishonest and say "X" proves God because I have faith that it does. We also expect that same level of honesty from our members.


Do you really expect me to give you a full explanation of evolution, all of the facts, the evidences, the questions that remain open and the facts and observations that disagree with it along with the discussions each time before I can discuss evolution? Or are you just saying that I can only discuss it as long as I do not call it a scientific theory? That must be it because you do not go around asking everyone on these boards to prove evolution, are you?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users