Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm still trying to figure out what evolutionist's consider a species, since birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are the same species - unless we are talking about Darwin's Finches - than suddenly birds that mate and produce fertile offspring are separate species showing speciation?
You haven't presented a single mainstream scientist that thinks "deliberate design" is observed.
You did not claim that designs produced by GA's aren't the product of the blind algoritm, because the blind algoritm was implemented by an intelligent programmer?
You change opinions so many times, it's really hard to keep track.
Till this day, I have actually no idea what you do and don't accept concerning evolution theory, for example.
Also, I'm growing a bit tired of running around in circles like this, as you probably already noticed from the reduced lengths of my post.
I feel like I should get a medal or something to put up with it for so long.
irrelevant.GA's . . . is dependent upon knowledge from the programmer.
Do you think humans and chimps are the same species?
Tsk tsk tsk...straw man much.
I never called Dawkins a liar or an idiot. I never claimed that evolution didn't have any evidence but of course we might have to determine what we mean by evolution.
It isn't irrelevant because evolution is suppose to be mindless, it is not planned for optimization and the program is.irrelevant.
flight simulators fall into the same category as GA's.
the space shuttle test flights were ALL made by computer simulation except 2.
the first such test was when she was released from a 747 and glided back to landing.
even this test was completely controlled by a computer.
the second fight was manned by crippen and young and was a full blown manned flight from launch to touch down.
the above was made possible by programming into the computer ALL of the variables, processes, and characteristics of the shuttle and the environment it would operate in.
contrast this with the mercury, gemini, and apollo program, where dozens of flights using actual hardware was made to validate the rocket.
the problem with GA's is . . . i've never seen one.
if there is indeed such a thing, i would like to see a link to it.
okay, you are apparently missing something here.It isn't irrelevant because evolution is suppose to be mindless, it is not planned for optimization and the program is.
I think you are missing something. It is a program where optimization is the goal. The program is predetermined to go towards that goal. So intelligence is predetermining optimization.okay, you are apparently missing something here.
this "mindless" thing you mentioned can be modeled by a suitable program.
tossing a coin is a perfect example.
you cannot predict what will come up, heads or tails, but you CAN predict that given 1000 tosses, the number of heads will be approximately 500.
a computer program can be written to give these results.
the very same program can be adjusted for any number of coins tossed, or for that matter any number of dice.
the thing that matters, the ONLY thing actually, is that the program accurately models what you want it to.
the shuttle example i gave above is a good example of how powerful computer modeling is, it can actually take the place of "hard evidence".
i will say this, if someone writes a computer program that models how atoms can become a man, and that program is verified as accurate, then you can bet it can actually happen.
the shuttle example above demonstrates this beyond question.
well, that depends on you you ask.I think you are missing something.
yes, some programs are written like that, boxcar2d for example.The program is predetermined to go towards that goal. So intelligence is predetermining optimization.
Then we agree? You are a programmer?well, that depends on you you ask.
it also depends on a large part how intoxicated i am.
but i'm pretty confident in my programming abilities.
yes, some programs are written like that, boxcar2d for example.
we have already determined that it doesn't mimic all of the processes of evolution and therefor doesn't apply to evolution as written.
an amateur, i've had a year anf a half on computer technology and programming was part of those classes.Then we agree? You are a programmer?
Ah, I see.an amateur, i've had a year anf a half on computer technology and programming was part of those classes.
we dealt mainly with chip level architectural design and assembler.
well see, the thing that really irks me about you is, you are completely unwilling to concede there might be an intelligence at work in relation to life.
DNA and its transcription system would almost demand it.
the unsolvable origins of life is another area.
the human brain, heck, even a bats brain is far beyond ANY super computer we can produce.
but yet you can't see any intelligence at work.
i can't, for the like of me, picture any kind of god, but yet i see intelligence in the way life is put together and how it operates.
Good...now this is a start. We can look at the actual evidence in this bit of evidence later. Can you supply anything else?
Tsk tsk tsk...straw man much.
I never called Dawkins a liar or an idiot. I never claimed that evolution didn't have any evidence but of course we might have to determine what we mean by evolution.
what irony.
roger lewin was called a liar more times than i can count when he penned his article for science.
he was accused of being incompetent, even though he won awards for his science books, even landing a prestigeous position as science editor for science.
he was even accused of misrepresentation.
why?
for publishing the facts in regards to a conference on evolution.
denise noble is another geneticist that was accused of "not knowing anything"
as a matter of fact, almost everyone that ever said anything against darwinism has either retracted or suffered the ire of their peers.
yes, a true fact finding process if i ever seen it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?