Moon was Created

futzman · Jan 16, 2008

dad said:
I see it was a movie. You would need to say in your words what points in it you think are important. In case you do not know, I believe in evolution, in that it started at Eden, from created creatures. So, trying to prove things evolve is a no brainer. The trick is to try and take it beyond the garden, that you, and your movie, or anything else on earth cannot do.

There. That didn't take long. Lurkers note here, that he will not be able to do it, I guarantee it.

The movie aptly demonstrates, through review of a computer simulation, how complexity (a working clock) can arise from elementary parts and feedback (selection) alone without the need for a designer. A subtle point also illustrates the concept of punctuated equilibrium. If you'll examine the population graphs you'll notice that the major evolutionary steps that are transitional form periods happen relatively instantaneously compared to the statis of each working age (e.g., "Age of the Pendulum"). This has important analogies in the fossil record where we see long periods of stable (yet extinct) lifeforms and few transitional forms. The simulation is brilliant in that it completely debunks the Creationist/IDist notion that complexity cannot arise from simple components and feedback and also shows a very good model of punctuated equilibrium. You can find more information about genetic programming by visiting http://www.genetic-programming.org/. I've been following this research for years (I'm a retired software engineer) and it was one of the major pieces of the puzzle that convinced me that evolution was based on sound logical principles. And how does this relate to your initial post? Well dad, a "god" is simply not necessary to be in awe of nature. I would have to say that like the old saying "fact is stranger than fiction" that the mechanisms of nature are more awesome than god.

necroforest · Jan 16, 2008

futzman said:
The movie aptly demonstrates, through review of a computer simulation, how complexity (a working clock) can arise from elementary parts and feedback (selection) alone without the need for a designer. A subtle point also illustrates the concept of punctuated equilibrium. If you'll examine the population graphs you'll notice that the major evolutionary steps that are transitional form periods happen relatively instantaneously compared to the statis of each working age (e.g., "Age of the Pendulum"). This has important analogies in the fossil record where we see long periods of stable (yet extinct) lifeforms and few transitional forms. The simulation is brilliant in that it completely debunks the Creationist/IDist notion that complexity cannot arise from simple components and feedback and also shows a very good model of punctuated equilibrium. You can find more information about genetic programming by visiting http://www.genetic-programming.org/. I've been following this research for years (I'm a retired software engineer) and it was one of the major pieces of the puzzle that convinced me that evolution was based on sound logical principles. And how does this relate to your initial post? Well dad, a "god" is simply not necessary to be in awe of nature. I would have to say that like the old saying "fact is stranger than fiction" that the mechanisms of nature are more awesome than god.

That technically isn't genetic programming; Genetic programming involves applying GA's to models of computation (such as parse trees) to 'evolve' programs.

futzman · Jan 16, 2008

necroforest said:
That technically isn't genetic programming; Genetic programming involves applying GA's to models of computation (such as parse trees) to 'evolve' programs.

Actually genetic programming is a generalization of the program in the movie. The "clocks" in the movie simulation are, in fact, programs generated by author's program. Programs generated by genetic programming techniques can theoretically solve any computational problem. But thanks for pointing out the differences.

dad · Jan 16, 2008

futzman said:
The movie aptly demonstrates, through review of a computer simulation, how complexity (a working clock) can arise from elementary parts and feedback (selection) alone without the need for a designer.

So a clock can come together on it's own now. I see.

A subtle point also illustrates the concept of punctuated equilibrium. If you'll examine the population graphs you'll notice that the major evolutionary steps that are transitional form periods happen relatively instantaneously compared to the statis of each working age (e.g., "Age of the Pendulum").

Well, how would you know what is transitional to begin with? Some things may be fairly clear, but if one assumes that the created kinds were the starting point, that moots the whole little concept something fierce. No?

This has important analogies in the fossil record where we see long periods of stable (yet extinct) lifeforms and few transitional forms.

Only in your head, of course. Because, will you please here and now show the reasons why it is claimed there were long ages between lifeforms? Then, you might tell us how you define one a stable and the other as not.

The simulation is brilliant in that it completely debunks the Creationist/IDist notion that complexity cannot arise from simple components and feedback and also shows a very good model of punctuated equilibrium.

I see. And how do you think it does that?

You can find more information about genetic programming by visiting http://www.genetic-programming.org/. I've been following this research for years (I'm a retired software engineer) and it was one of the major pieces of the puzzle that convinced me that evolution was based on sound logical principles.

From that..
"Genetic programming (GP) is an automated method for creating a working computer program from a high-level problem statement of a problem. Genetic programming starts from a high-level statement of what needs to be done and automatically creates a computer program to solve the problem."

So, we have created man looking at a problem, and programming a man created machine to solve it. Then, you think that the result somehow proves that there was no creation.
Seems to me the opposite is true! And, the more clever the program, the more true it becomes. None of this started from nothing.

And how does this relate to your initial post? Well dad, a "god" is simply not necessary to be in awe of nature.

And being in awe of present nature does not mean there is no God.

I would have to say that like the old saying "fact is stranger than fiction" that the mechanisms of nature are more awesome than god.

Except for one obvious thing you seem to have missed there. You do not know God, all you know is present nature. So, the comparison is daft.

futzman · Jan 16, 2008

dad said:
So a clock can come together on it's own now. I see.

Yes, actually. Did you watch the video and actually pay attention?

dad said:
Well, how would you know what is transitional to begin with? Some things may be fairly clear, but if one assumes that the created kinds were the starting point, that moots the whole little concept something fierce. No?

So your simulation of creation by a god would go something like this,

God aGod = new God();

main()
{
World aWorld = aGod.makeworld();
exit();
}

How convenient. I really have no way to argue with this short circuit in our discussion. If you can see from the simulation how transitional forms are possible at ALL levels of evolution, then I can't really help you.

dad said:
Only in your head, of course. Because, will you please here and now show the reasons why it is claimed there were long ages between lifeforms? Then, you might tell us how you define one a stable and the other as not.

Well the obvious reasons that come to mind are that 1) there must be selection pressure (severe climate change, pressure from other species, etc) to cause an evolved form to be "needed" for survival and 2) a "good" mutation leading to the trait would have to occur and be propagated. Once again, did you actually watch the video and pay attention?

dad said:
I see. And how do you think it does that?

From that..
"Genetic programming (GP) is an automated method for creating a working computer program from a high-level problem statement of a problem. Genetic programming starts from a high-level statement of “what needs to be done” and automatically creates a computer program to solve the problem."

So, we have created man looking at a problem, and programming a man created machine to solve it. Then, you think that the result somehow proves that there was no creation.
Seems to me the opposite is true! And, the more clever the program, the more true it becomes. None of this started from nothing.

You obviously don't get the subtle points here dad. First, the fact that the program in the video illustrates how complexity can arise WITHOUT A DESIGNER does not prove creation by a god didn't happen. It DOES illustrate and debunk the complexity can arise out of nothing argument you and other Creationists/IDists claim cannot happen. I make no claim that is more than a simulation, but it is certainly more convincing and fits the facts more than your program (see above) and it doesn't require some mythical Santa Claus to poof the clocks into existence.

dad said:
And being in awe of present nature does not mean there is no God.

Except for one obvious thing you seem to have missed there. You do not know God, all you know is present nature. So, the comparison is daft.

I maintain neither do you. You know a psychological condition in your own mind induced by millions of years of evolution. Sorry to break it to you, but there most certainly is no god. I don't like the conclusion I've come to but the evidence is pretty clear to me.

dad · Jan 16, 2008

futzman said:
Yes, actually. Did you watch the video and actually pay attention?

No. I expect you to show points.

So your simulation of creation by a god would go something like this,

God aGod = new God();

No. This universe was not a beginning for God.

main()
{
World aWorld = aGod.makeworld();
exit();
}

No, He hung around.

How convenient. I really have no way to argue with this short circuit in our discussion. If you can see from the simulation how transitional forms are possible at ALL levels of evolution, then I can't really help you.

No, you can't, any more than you have a thing to say about the fact evolution started at creation.

Well the obvious reasons that come to mind are that 1) there must be selection pressure (severe climate change, pressure from other species, etc) to cause an evolved form to be "needed" for survival and

There must be matters not. What must have been matters.

2) a "good" mutation leading to the trait would have to occur and be propagated. Once again, did you actually watch the video and pay attention?

No, but, if we were created with the ability to evolve as needed, good changes are expected.

You obviously don't get the subtle points here dad. First, the fact that the program in the video illustrates how complexity can arise WITHOUT A DESIGNER does not prove creation by a god didn't happen.

True.

It DOES illustrate and debunk the complexity can arise out of nothing argument you and other Creationists/IDists claim cannot happen.

Howso? The programmer is nothing now?

I make no claim that is more than a simulation, but it is certainly more convincing and fits the facts more than your program (see above) and it doesn't require some mythical Santa Claus to poof the clocks into existence.

Well, it requires a Programmer.

I maintain neither do you. You know a psychological condition in your own mind induced by millions of years of evolution.

That claim is a psychological condition in your own mind induced by a myth.

Sorry to break it to you, but there most certainly is no god.

Yes, there is.

I don't like the conclusion I've come to but the evidence is pretty clear to me.

Delusions usually seem so.

futzman · Jan 16, 2008

dad said:
Delusions usually seem so.

This is possibly the most ironic statement I've seen on this forum to date.

dad, you seem like a nice person but I honestly believe you don't want to see the truth. When you want to come back with evidence supporting your warm-fuzzy feelings about how the universe works, then I'll be happy to debate you. Otherwise, we really don't have much common ground to even begin a discussion. The simulation I've pointed you to easily proves it point to even a casual, objective viewer. Maybe someday your faith blinders will lower a bit enough that your reasoning is not suffocated by wishful thinking.

Parmenio · Jan 17, 2008

Delusions usually seem so.

This is a beautiful quote dad. Simply priceless.

dad · Jan 17, 2008

futzman said:
This is possibly the most ironic statement I've seen on this forum to date.

Thanks, of course, if you had something that was beyond delusion, that you could have made a coherant case about, we would not need to apply that, to your movie.

dad, you seem like a nice person but I honestly believe you don't want to see the truth.

Well, in the seeking of truth, I look for people that know what it is they are talking about. So far, on the topic of some program that is supposed to show a Programmer is not needed, you fail completely. Don't blame me.

When you want to come back with evidence supporting your warm-fuzzy feelings about how the universe works, then I'll be happy to debate you. Otherwise, we really don't have much common ground to even begin a discussion.

I wouldn't know, you have not been able to so much a explain your position, you want all to watch a movie. Should I then ask you to read the bible, cover to cover, and war an peace, and the Catholic and Jewish encyclopedias, etc? No. A debate is presenting your points, not handing out viewing assignments. If you had made a good case, I would look at the silly little youtube thingy. You ain't there yet, and it appears you never will be so far here.

The simulation I've pointed you to easily proves it point to even a casual, objective viewer.

Sure, but you just can't say how, for some strange reason.

Maybe someday your faith blinders will lower a bit enough that your reasoning is not suffocated by wishful thinking.

Where the spiritual and God are wishful thinking, and 'reason' consists of some silly so called science based only on the limited present natural world, and a movie you can't explain cohesively, I'll take the former, thanks. At least that is well known, tested, tried, observed, and it works.

I would be embarrassed by the big drum roll you did for some movie you can't even seem to get a handle on.

Did you really think you would get away with it here?

futzman · Jan 17, 2008

dad said:
Thanks, of course, if you had something that was beyond delusion, that you could have made a coherant case about, we would not need to apply that, to your movie.

I've already explained to you the salient points in the movie. Besides, it's not really asking much to view a 10 minute video clip. But, for the lazy Creationists out there like yourself I'll email the author and ask if he can condense it a bit. Since I'm long-suffering though I'll sum it up for you one last time:

1) Creationists/IDists claim that complexity in nature cannot arise without a designer. One classic analogy they use is that if you shake up a bag full of watch parts you're very, very unlikely to produce a watch. This is a point that rational people agree with.
2) The movie shows where this analogy is a strawman argument. It does this by showing how with a COMPUTER SIMULATION OF NATURAL SELECTION AND MUTATION, full-functioning complexity CAN arise using the simple principles PRESENT IN NATURE.
3) The movie shows several graphs charting the progress of several generations of clock evolution, including the final populations of working pendulum and spring-driven 3 and 4-handed clocks.
4) The programmer is NOT the designer of the clocks. Let me repeat this so you fully understand it dad -- THE PROGRAMMER IS NOT THE DESIGNER OF THE CLOCKS. He is simply the designer of the selection pressure factors (keeping time) and how the various parts of the clock have affinity for one another, just as biological "parts" do in nature. To claim that since a programmer is needed to program the simulation therefore it is not valid is saying you really, really (no REALLY) don't understand the logic here. (Disclaimer -- a few additional IQ points may be needed to grasp this concept. I really can't help you with this sorry.)

dad said:
Well, in the seeking of truth, I look for people that know what it is they are talking about. So far, on the topic of some program that is supposed to show a Programmer is not needed, you fail completely. Don't blame me.
I wouldn't know, you have not been able to so much a explain your position, you want all to watch a movie.

I'm a retired veteran software engineer and have written several artificial intelligence systems in the past including neural network simulations and genetic programs. I hope I've explained it a bit better now.

dad said:
Should I then ask you to read the bible, cover to cover, and war an peace, and the Catholic and Jewish encyclopedias, etc? No. A debate is presenting your points, not handing out viewing assignments.

I provided a link to the movie because the author does such an excellent job with this topic. It's not my job to hold your hand if you're simply too lazy to view a 10 minute video where you might learn something. What are you afraid of? And, by the way, I HAVE read the Bible cover to cover several times. What would you like to know?

rydog32 · Jan 17, 2008

dad said:
OK, pass the guitar around, throw a few logs on the fire, chug a cup of brew down, get out your story stick, and share your blanket with the chilly chick on the log next to you.
How cutthroat is that?

Ahaaha, wow i laughed really hard at that.

Well since were on these stupid equations this is my π.

moon = god = earth = π

yeah if you look past the bleakness it makes sense.

π is pi, but it wont show it.

dad · Jan 18, 2008

rydog32 said:
Ahaaha, wow i laughed really hard at that.

Well since were on these stupid equations this is my π.

moon = god = earth = π
...

So, in english, that means what?

dad · Jan 18, 2008

futzman said:
1) Creationists/IDists claim that complexity in nature cannot arise without a designer. One classic analogy they use is that if you shake up a bag full of watch parts you're very, very unlikely to produce a watch. This is a point that rational people agree with.
2) The movie shows where this analogy is a strawman argument. It does this by showing how with a COMPUTER SIMULATION OF NATURAL SELECTION AND MUTATION, full-functioning complexity CAN arise using the simple principles PRESENT IN NATURE.

The problem is that the watch, in the watch maker parable is nature. It already is complexity! It already was the result of a Programmer!

3) The movie shows several graphs charting the progress of several generations of clock evolution, including the final populations of working pendulum and spring-driven 3 and 4-handed clocks.

What is clock evolution? You mean the history of early clocks made by man?

4) The programmer is NOT the designer of the clocks.

OK, so who is???

Let me repeat this so you fully understand it dad -- THE PROGRAMMER IS NOT THE DESIGNER OF THE CLOCKS.

I repeat, who is???? A ghost?

He is simply the designer of the selection pressure factors (keeping time) and how the various parts of the clock have affinity for one another, just as biological "parts" do in nature.

Nature is the clock. Some things in nature have an affinity for each other, that was how it was designed.

To claim that since a programmer is needed to program the simulation therefore it is not valid is saying you really, really (no REALLY) don't understand the logic here.

You don't. The program you refer to had a programmer, admit it!!! The movie you push had a movie maker, admit it!!! The posts you make had an author, admit it!!!

The point you missed is that creation in all it's complexity is the clock. You cannot fantasize some point based on nature, that ends up with complexity, when creation and nature is the program, that had the Programmer.

I'm a retired veteran software engineer and have written several artificial intelligence systems in the past including neural network simulations and genetic programs. I hope I've explained it a bit better now.

Great, so now you need to work on genuine intelligence, I suppose. I am here to help.

I provided a link to the movie because the author does such an excellent job with this topic. It's not my job to hold your hand if you're simply too lazy to view a 10 minute video where you might learn something. What are you afraid of?

Well, now that you presented your case, I assure you, nothing at all but time wasting.

And, by the way, I HAVE read the Bible cover to cover several times. What would you like to know?

What are the bits that made you not believe it?

rydog32 · Jan 18, 2008

It means absolutely nothing

dad · Jan 18, 2008

rydog32 said:
It means absolutely nothing

Why bring it up, then?

Nathan Poe · Jan 18, 2008

dad said:
So, in english, that means what?

Not a day goes by where someone doesn't ask you this same question, dad -- and you've never answered.

futzman · Jan 18, 2008

dad said:
The problem is that the watch, in the watch maker parable is nature. It already is complexity! It already was the result of a Programmer!

What is clock evolution? You mean the history of early clocks made by man?

OK, so who is???
I repeat, who is???? A ghost?

dad, you don't understand the issue enough to discuss it, but for one last time, for the benefit of the intelligent lurkers here -- NO ONE DESIGNED THE CLOCK! The clocks arose in the simulation and self-organized due to selection pressure and mutation. The programmer of the simulation HAD NO IDEA WHETHER CLOCKS WOULD SELF-ORGANIZE OR NOT!

dad said:
Nature is the clock. Some things in nature have an affinity for each other, that was how it was designed.

Agree except the last part is pure speculation.

dad said:
The point you missed is that creation in all it's complexity is the clock. You cannot fantasize some point based on nature, that ends up with complexity, when creation and nature is the program, that had the Programmer.

Nothing missed here by me. You either 1) don't have the IQ necessary to understand the issues or 2) are paranoid delusional. Sorry, but I can't help you with either. (I forgot one -- you're a troll. This is probably the most likely case.)

dad said:
Great, so now you need to work on genuine intelligence, I suppose. I am here to help.

Help me be like you? No thank you.

dad said:
Well, now that you presented your case, I assure you, nothing at all but time wasting.
What are the bits that made you not believe it?

Logic, observation of the real world, lack of any evidence for real miracles, prayers never answered, evolution (yep, it's one of the big reasons actually!) and, if god exists, the ridiculously obtuse way he works through man. The Bible really had little to do with my atheism except for the supposed prophets and their prophesies in the Bible which seem largely like "prophets" nowadays -- bogus, obtuse and silly. I could elaborate more but I don't think this thread is the place. Start a new one in apologetics and I'll be happy to go on.

Wyzaard · Jan 18, 2008

dad said:
I sort of assume the kind that believes only in the natural,

What reason should/do I have to believe in anything else?

Doesn't matter, in the myth line up, the bible is a big boy.

So says the Christian... trouble is, other religion's doctrines and their believers claim otherwise according to their criteria; why should one believe you over all of them and any other schema we can come up with, on what justified grounds?

The hard reality is that nothing hard has ever went to the beautiful forever foundations of this, the absolute center of all universes!!!!

Wha...? All I'm talking about is the center of this planet, not the universe, or any other; is that really a claim of yours? Holy bejeebus...

dad · Jan 19, 2008

Nathan Poe said:
Not a day goes by where someone doesn't ask you this same question, dad -- and you've never answered.

In case anyone thinks this guy is serious, here is the snip I responded to

"
Originally Posted by rydog32

Ahaaha, wow i laughed really hard at that.

Well since were on these stupid equations this is my π.

moon = god = earth = π"

dad · Jan 19, 2008

futzman said:
dad, you don't understand the issue enough to discuss it, but for one last time,

You are wearing a little thin with that one last time business.

for the benefit of the intelligent lurkers here -- NO ONE DESIGNED THE CLOCK!

Says you. But intelligent folks know that a clock is designed. In your case, you want to start with the clock, (nature) and jiggle it a bit, to get a little tick tock , as if that means that the clock poofed into being.

The clocks arose in the simulation and self-organized due to selection pressure and mutation.

Focus, man. The clocks arose from WHAT??? Nature, which is the complex clock that God created. (at least the state of it we now find ourselves in). So NOTHING self organized, the clock was already here. Just exactly like a program is already here, a program designed to do certain things. Like your program, that was designed to try to get complexity, or what have you. All that is is an intelligent program at work.

The programmer of the simulation HAD NO IDEA WHETHER CLOCKS WOULD SELF-ORGANIZE OR NOT!

But he had an idea how to program!! He had a computer!!! He had a body!!! He had brain!!! He could look up, and see stars at night!!!! He was once a baby in a womb!!!!! He lives on this created earth!!!! Otherwise, there would be no pretend clock, from an intelligent program.

Logic, observation of the real world,

It won't be real that long, it is going to pass away, as you will.

lack of any evidence for real miracles,

Some have, some don't.

prayers never answered,

The answer is no a lot of the time. Deal with it.

evolution (yep, it's one of the big reasons actually!)

Started in Eden, so??

and, if god exists, the ridiculously obtuse way he works through man.

He does what He can, with what He got.

The Bible really had little to do with my atheism except for the supposed prophets and their prophesies in the Bible which seem largely like "prophets" nowadays -- bogus, obtuse and silly.

Never heard of the Christmas story? That is a lot of prophesy fulfilled.

I could elaborate more but I don't think this thread is the place. Start a new one in apologetics and I'll be happy to go on.

That's OK, I think we get the drift. Hopefully you get the drift on the clock thing now.

Moon was Created

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Undefeated!

Regular Member

Undefeated!

Regular Member

Senior Member

Undefeated!

Regular Member

Active Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Active Member

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency