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.
Since you cannot back up your argument I'm on the verge of thinking it is tacit admission of your error. Here's your final chance to put me straight - produce the evidence and I'll tell the world that you are right. Produce nothing and we'll conclude you have no argument and are making dishonest, unsupported claims.what are you talking about? it was a theoretical question about a flying UFO. if we can conclude design base on such object then it means that we can detect design base on the object alone.
If the principle underlying biological evolution didn't work, not only would our evolved antenna not be generated, but we wouldn't be around to set up the evolutionary antenna process.so its irrelevant to biological evolution. even if evolution was false we can still create that antenna.
But not in DNA, only via analogies.On the other hand, from the ID perspective, we can demonstrate new digital information being originated and updated all the time - (even remotely by radio waves like DNA to some extent)
If the principle underlying biological evolution didn't work, not only would our evolved antenna not be generated, but we wouldn't be around to set up the evolutionary antenna process.
but i just showed you that even if evolution is false we still could make that antenna.
No, I don't. That's why I asked you to talk us through your thought process. How do you recognise something that is too complex to evolve naturally?
it seems that you cant do that either. so how you conclude design when you see a PC if you cant provide a criteria to detect design?I'm not going to do your homework. If you want to argue that we are designed, you provide your own definition.
it seems that you cant do that either. so how you conclude design when you see a pc if you cant provide a criteria to detect design?
Per the NASA paper on the subject they clearly state that the evolutionary algorithms could create designs that a human designer wouldn't likely be able to. Thus if the principles of evolution didn't work, the antenna they created wouldn't otherwise exist.
again: distinguish between what they call "evolutionary algorithms" and evolutionery theory. even if the theory is wrong we can still make that antenna. thats a fact. and by the way we can call it designed algorithms as well since they were made by design and not by a natural process like evolution.
so according to you i cant choose a good apple (out of a pile of apples) without the theory of evolution since its base on evolutionery principles (natural selection)?The algorithms are based on the principles derived from the theory of evolution. Without the theory of evolution, the algorithms wouldn't exist.
And no, they are not called "designed algorithms". The correct term is evolutionary algorithms. You don't get to rebrand things just because you don't like the implications.
No; as I explained, if evolution was false we wouldn't be here. But specifically to your point, we also couldn't make the antenna via evolutionary algorithms - because, by your premise, they wouldn't work.but i just showed you that even if evolution is false we still could make that antenna.
so according to you i cant choose a good apple (out of a pile of apples) without the theory of evolution since its base on evolutionery principles (natural selection)?
you are basically suggesting that if some process mimmic evolutionery process (in this case evolutionary algorithms) then it means that we cant do that process without evolution to be true. am i right?
Stop avoiding the question. I asked you to talk us through how you detect something that is too complex to evolve naturally. If you can't do that, just say so.it seems that you cant do that either. so how you conclude design when you see a PC if you cant provide a criteria to detect design?
it seems that you cant do that either. so how you conclude design when you see a PC if you cant provide a criteria to detect design?
Without the theory of evolution you can't have an algorithm derived from the theory of evolution.
Are you kidding? It was the observance of these small steps which gave rise to the idea of evolution in the first place.i dont think so. say that tomorrow someone will falsify evolution. are you saying hat we will not be able to use these algorithms anymore?. its irrelevant to biological evolution of course. so the fact that something mimmic evolution doesnt prove that evolution is true.
more than that: in reality evolution need small steps. but no one know if these small steps actually exist. thus again these algorithms are irrelevant to biological evolution.
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?