Lucas,
I knew this would happen after I left so I couldnt resist checking back on this thread.
1. Post 202:
Thanks for the link but I guess you did not read it yourself. Did you even see the intelligent intervention in the programming, or do you simply pretend that it did it on its own to deceive the unwary reader who may not check out your proofs? Did you read this:
The five major preparatory steps for the basic version of genetic programming require the human user to specify
(1) the set of terminals (e.g., the independent variables of the problem, zero-argument functions, and random constants) for each branch of the to-be-evolved program,
(2) the set of primitive functions for each branch of the to-be-evolved program,
(3) the fitness measure (for explicitly or implicitly measuring the fitness of individuals in the population),
(4) certain parameters for controlling the run, and
(5) the termination criterion and method for designating the result of the run.
Again, the proof is in the pudding and your pudding is intelligently designed. I never questioned the ability of a computer to manipulate the input of an intelligent programmer, now did I?
And the problem is producing AI WITHOUT intelligent input. You again prove that the intelligent input is necessary. Thanks. The checkers game was a manipulation of intelligent programing.
You said: Dawkins did not select."
But he said (page 65) ...it was I that programmed the computer, telling it IN GREAT DETAIL WHAT TO DO, nevertheless I didnt plan the animals that evolved. And (page 60) The role of the HUMAN EYE was limited to selecting...
You are simply trying to distort the truth.
You said (still in post 202): No one said Foxs experiment produced a genetic code.
Exactly my point, no one has in spite of the exaggerated claims and eloquent titles of scientific papers that would seem to indicate that they have solved the problem.
You said: Dembski has shown that information arises from selection
Another attempt to twist my words. I already said several times on this thread that the problem is the origin of the information system )complete with the rules of grammar etc.) is the problem. You evade the issue by pretending that I am opposed to Dembski. I am not. Why dont you read the thread?
Your checkers game and GAs do not solve the problem and neither does Fox. You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel (I know, I know I am plagiarizing again.
)
Post 203:
First paragraph:
Read my book. You obviously have not or you would know the answers to your irrelevant questions. You strain at gnats.
You said:
How can you identify that God reached down and with His "fingers" moved those wiggling and squirming chemicals such that a new nucleotide was inserted in that gene at that place? If not, if it was indeed due to what you call "natural forces", then how can we tell that similar events were also not natural? Now you have to go thru each and every event and falsify the natural. Have you done that?
Read the thread and my book. Intelligent intervention must be inferred in most cases just as you cannot prove that a machine is not typing this response. The entirety of the system implies design just as the entirety of this thread implies intelligent input.
You said:
You are also ignoring history. After all, God directly intervening to cause a world-wide Flood that caused geological features was the prevailing scientific theory from 1700-1831. Also, ID was the prevailing scientific theory from 1800-1859. ID is the same as Special Creation, which was the theory that Darwin falsified in Origin of the Species.
That is why I refer to modern science because it refuses to consider God even when ID is indicated. And ID is not the same as special creation, but argue semantics with someone else.
Post 204:
You said:
Where does God claim to hide evidence and purposely deceive people.
I think you just destroyed the very theism you are trying to defend! Altho you may still have a deity existing, it's not any deity that any human is going to worship and follow! Why bother? If all your god is going to do is lie to us like Satan, then why follow? For everlasting life? Wouldn't that just be another purposeful lie?
I will answer this one question about the nature of God:
Ez:14:9: And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.
2Thes:2:11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Thes:2:12: That they all might be ****** who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
1Kgs:22:23: Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
You said:
Well, now you just denied ID! You're on a roll. ID claims that we can find God without direct revelation. We can look in general revelation (the universe) and detect God. Now you say we can't. There goes ID!
No, there goes your intellectual honesty. ID claims that we can find evidence of intelligent design. Christianity is based upon supernatural revelation of the nature of God and his judgment and love. You havent even bothered to read the preface of my book evidently, but you still form your conclusions based on a lack of evidence.
You said:
WHOA! Two separate concepts here!
1. Information.
2. Meaning. As in a "meaning of life".
No, just the extension of the word meaning which is applicable to the topic of this thread. Extending the concept results in a meaning to life, that is, the meaning and reason that the creator gave the information in life for a specific purpose.
You said:
Not "plan ahead", but simply react to problems posed at the moment.
The laws of physics produced intelligence according the theory of evolution. I have been told repeatedly on this thread that we are the result of chemical reactions that are the same as water and hydrogen and oxygen reacting together. Well what laws dictate these reactions? Answer; The laws of physics. Now how did natural selection come into existence apart from the laws of physics? You assert that these laws create intelligence by use of natural selection but that is only an evasion. If natural selection creates meaning and intelligence then natural selection is not natural.
Post 205:
You again evade the issue which is the origin of information and the associated machinery etc. Your checkers game didnt do it and neither did Fox et al so you prolong the thread with irrelevance.
You said:
Your answer is in chemistry, not physics.
Well what laws does chemistry follow?
You said:
So we get new information in thermal proteins and in RNA made by chemical reactions. That's the starting point. The rest comes in steps as that initial chemical information is added to by natural selection.
Now, you claim that there has been no work on how you get the genetic code. That is wrong.
Again, you twist my words. I did not say that there was no work on how you get the genetic code. I studied the work on code origin before I wrote the book. The beginnings of the code that are supposed to prove that if we just wait a few million generations we will have a complete language are like saying that if we can only make the gears we can eventually assemble a watch that tells perfect time. Where exactly is the result??? You only prove what I wrote in the book.
Post 207:
You said:
Notto showed this claim to be false. You do make such a claim in your book.
Why dont you read what I said? (Clue, the quote is in your own 207 post).
You said:
Changed your thesis from the book, haven't you? You were telling us that God could not have used the natural processes because such processes cannot yield life.
Again, you twist my words. I specifically said that God does use natural processes as he sees fit. You havent read the book even though I have linked to an online version of it. Why dont you read it and get back to me? I dont have time to waste with you.
You said:
Here you are!. You are saying that God directly manufactured the genetic code and assigned the triplet code to the amino acids. The evidence says the triplet code evolved by natural selection.
Again, I DID NOT SAY what you assert I said. Do you do this intentionally? Why dont you read what I said. You really are not very good at reading between the lines. Like I said, read the book. It is free online just for you.
The rest of your post is the same old tripe with you trying to read my mind and twisting my words to fit your strawman. A modern computer can simulate millions of generations of evolution in a few days. Why dont you solve the problem? Now, I really have to go but maybe I will check on this thread in Thailand to make sure you dont pull anymore fast ones.