Cerebral Dendrites are Mini Computers!

[GrowingSmaller]

Logical depth is a measure of complexity devised by Charles H. Bennett based on the computational complexity of an algorithm that can recreate a given piece of information....
Wikipedia


Basically IIRC - how difficult is this (brain etc) to make?

Like someone said, if God cannot deceive, why the appearance of evolution?


Wouldn't it be difficult for God to deceive?

 

[Larniavc]

You mean Atheistic evolution? Well, umm, mindless processes would never mimic the brilliancy of a mind.

BTW
"I can't see!" isn't a rebuttal.

Once again the request is for you to provide evidence of this designer.

There will be a lot of noise but no signal.

Keep it up, Rad!

 

[Radrook]

Logical depth is a measure of complexity devised by Charles H. Bennett based on the computational complexity of an algorithm that can recreate a given piece of information....
Wikipedia


Basically IIRC - how difficult is this (brain etc) to make?

Like someone said, if God cannot deceive, why the appearance of evolution?


Wouldn't it be difficult for God to deceive?

Theistic evolutionists find absolutely no reason to conclude that the ID is attempting to deceive via the fossil record.

 

[KCfromNC]

Theistic evolutionists find absolutely no reason to conclude that the ID is attempting to deceive via the fossil record.

That's true - at least when there was a legal penalty for ID proponents lying. That's why they lost all those court cases instead of convincing people that ID is anything more than religious dogma.

 

[rjs330]

No, it isn't. Because such demonstrations are independently testable.
If it is wrong, it could be shown to be wrong.

You guys crack me up with the testable thoughts. You can't test evolution either. No matter how hard you try. Why? Because common ancestor happened so long ago that it can't be found or can't be tested on. Everything that now evolves still remains what it was and what it always has been. Evolutionists have no answer to how an initial single creature evolved into everything there is. And they can't show it is possible either. It's not testable or reproducible.

 

[rjs330]

It is, in the sense that it proposes specific periodic acts of Efficient causal intervention by the "designer" which theistic evolution does not require. In essence, it asserts that divinely conceived and supervised natural forces are incapable of accounting for all biological phenomena, a de facto denial of God's immanence in His creation.

Are you saying that in theistic evolution God is not involved in the process? That Gods immanence is not involved in the evolutionary process? I'm not trying argue here. Just trying to understand what theistic evolution believes.

I thought theistic evolution believes that God created the initial common ancestor and set evolution in motion. Then somewhere in the process he intervened and gave man a soul. Am I wrong here?

 

[Speedwell]

Are you saying that in theistic evolution God is not involved in the process? That Gods immanence is not involved in the evolutionary process? I'm not trying argue here. Just trying to understand what theistic evolution believes.

I thought theistic evolution believes that God created the initial common ancestor and set evolution in motion. Then somewhere in the process he intervened and gave man a soul. Am I wrong here?

"Theistic evolution" covers a wide variety of beliefs; I can only speak for my own view. Which is, in short, that God created everything and is still involved causally with it. From our standpoint, however, the natural causes of reality will appear to be complete and exhaustive--these can be likened to the Efficient causes of Aristotle's metaphysics, the only kind of causality science deals with. Consequently, it is my belief that science can, in principle, demonstrate that life came into existence and subsequently diversified by natural means without denying God's simultaneous causality, or painting Him as the "watchmaker" who winds the universe up and then merely observes it working. Many creationists, I find, have an inadequate one-dimensional notion of causality and so assume that if a natural cause for any phenomena is asserted, a divine cause is thereby denied, but causality is a much deeper issue than that. My own understanding of the subject is naive, I realize, but adequate for a layman and explains why I have no concern whatever about what science may discover of our origins.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you saying that in theistic evolution God is not involved in the process? That Gods immanence is not involved in the evolutionary process? I'm not trying argue here. Just trying to understand what theistic evolution believes.

I thought theistic evolution believes that God created the initial common ancestor and set evolution in motion. Then somewhere in the process he intervened and gave man a soul. Am I wrong here?

If you look at the research, of the different religious groups a good percentage of folks believe, God had no hand in evolution.

Belief in evolution by religious tradition

 

[Radrook]

That's true - at least when there was a legal penalty for ID proponents lying. That's why they lost all those court cases instead of convincing people that ID is anything more than religious dogma.

An ID proponent need not be an evolutionist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An ID proponent need not be an evolutionist.

What is that supposed to mean? Those on the evolution side ddo not need to lie. They have evidence on their side. You would do yourself a huge favor if you would bother to at least learn what scientific evidence is. Here is a hint:

There is none for ID and that is the fault of ID proponents.

 

[Radrook]

What is that supposed to mean? Those on the evolution side ddo not need to lie. They have evidence on their side. You would do yourself a huge favor if you would bother to at least learn what scientific evidence is. Here is a hint:

There is none for ID and that is the fault of ID proponents.

Your assumption that I am ignorant of the scientific method and that everyone else who dares to disagree with you is also ignorant of the scientific method constitutes self-agrandizing wishful thinking totally disconnected from actual reality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your assumption that I am ignorant of the scientific method and that everyone else who dares to disagree with you is also ignorant of the scientific method constitutes self-agrandizing wishful thinking totally disconnected from actual reality.

I made no assumption, you have demonstrated your shortcomings yourself. Why do you refuse to even try to learn what scientific evidence is? Debating you would be more interesting if you could make a valid point.

And please, ease up on the personal attacks.

 

[KCfromNC]

An ID proponent need not be an evolutionist.

Lincoln is the capitol of Nebraska.

Now we've both posted things totally unrelated to anything else said in the thread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That fact doesn't cancel out the criteria for determining intelligent design.

Actually, it does.

And for my interest: what "criteria" are those again?

I asked you a couple dozen times and still await the answer...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You guys crack me up with the testable thoughts. You can't test evolution either.

One certaintly can. Just find a blatant violation of the nested hierarchy that is predicted by evolution.

Like mammals with feathers, reptiles with hair, reptiles with inner ear bones, non-primates that share more ERV's with humans then primates, etc etc etc.

No matter how hard you try. Why? Because common ancestor happened so long ago that it can't be found or can't be tested on.

Events of the past leave evidence in the present.
Your grandparents having sex was a long time ago and they might not even be alive anymore. But we could still use your DNA to see if your siblings and cousins are your actual siblings and cousins.

Everything that now evolves still remains what it was and what it always has been.

Evolution doesn't predict otherwise.

Evolutionists have no answer to how an initial single creature evolved into everything there is.

Except of course, that that is exactly what the theory of evolution explains. Off course, you'ld have to learn what this theory actually says. We, off course, aren't talking about that strawman version you are arguing against.

And they can't show it is possible either. It's not testable or reproducible.

Except, off course, that it is. Your ignorance on the matter notwithstanding...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your assumption that I am ignorant of the scientific method

Well, when you say things like "events of the past can't be tested/investigated in the present", you're kind of exposing rather blatantly that you have no clue about how science works.

 

[Radrook]

Well, when you say things like "events of the past can't be tested/investigated in the present", you're kind of exposing rather blatantly that you have no clue about how science works.

What your response proves is your lamentable misunderstanding of things that are clearly expressed perhaps buttressed by an uncontrollable penchant to go off on totally unrelated unjustifiable tangents in order to heckle and jeckle.

BTW
Those who ignore logic and deploy selective blindness and inconsistency of policy appear a bit quaint when attempting to represent or defend the scientific method which they themselves are violating .

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What your response proves is your lamentable misunderstanding of things that are clearly expressed perhaps buttressed by an uncontrollable penchant to go off on totally unrelated unjustifiable tangents in order to heckle and jeckle.

Actually, it rather seems to prove that I was mistaken. It was rjs330 that said that. I appologise.

BTW
Those who ignore logic and deploy selective blindness and inconsistency of policy appear a bit quaint when attempting to represent or defend the scientific method which they themselves are violating .

BTW
Have you already tried to define the basic terms used in "intelligent design"? More specifically, the word "design" and the criteria by which it can be objectively detected?

Since you understand science so well, you surely realise that if you propose a model to explain an aspect of reality, you need to define it in such a way that it is open to testing and falsification, right?

So.... perhaps you would like to do that with your ID model. I mean, I've been asking for that for quite a while now, in various different video threads of yours.

Can I expect an honest answer any time soon, or....?

 

[Radrook]

Actually, it does.

And for my interest: what "criteria" are those again?

I asked you a couple dozen times and still await the answer...

Why would it cancel out whatever criteria it is that you're using?

 

[Speedwell]

Why would it cancel out whatever criteria it is that you're using?

Because your criteria evidently find intelligent design where ours do not, and you have accused us of changing ours when necessary to avoid detecting ID in situations where your criteria would do so. That is, you claim we use your criteria except where they would point to an ID for natural phenomena, but since we don't know exactly what your criteria are, it is not possible to answer the accusation.