|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 8:35:48 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
The inference that we were designed is a scientific deduction (it is falsifiable). Questions of who the designer is are philosophical.
1. The possiblilty that we are designed may be a falsifiable notion, but so far it has not led to a definite conclusion, nor has it done anything to extend our understanding of biological functions.
2. Even if it were conclusive, the next step, by deductive reasoning, would have to be an investigation of the intelligence itself. To stop short of this would be scientifically irresponsible, not to mention laughable. It would be kind of like reading an engrossing mystery novel, but then stopping short of actually finding out how it ends because that would be too philosophical.
quote:
Darwinism allows that there is no God. From a philosophical standpoint, this indirectly implies there is no God. Since science can't prove that God doesn't exist, such an implication is philosophical.
Incorrect. No science of any kind allows for theism or atheism to be part of the theorem. If someone infers theism from the theory, that is completely subjective, but science does not imply anything.
To use a different example: does our government imply atheism because of the separation of church and state? Not at all. It simply means that the two don't mix in American government. Church is one thing, the state is another.
Same with science: theism is one thing, science is another.
quote:
Depends on your criteria of "flaw." Perhaps the existence of an imperishable design is impossible. All these are philosophical arguments.
It still reflects on the supposed designer no matter how you semantically tiptoe over it. Once we acknowledge- scientifically- that there is a design, we begin to profile the designer based upon our observations.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/22/2008 10:24:33 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6771
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
What does that matter?
Well in a flawed universe to have an information system that maintains itself in the overwhelming number of cases for billions of years indicates incredible capability and sophistication.
quote:
Somehow I don't see that in this sentence:
Science frequently leads to philosophical considerations that science itself cannot answer; that fact simply delineates the limits of science, not ID.
Your syntax points to ID as an exception to the limits of science.
That is bad syntax; I should have added ‘in particular’.
quote:
Is there any other assumption to choose from without resorting to religious doctrine (which would be unscientific)?
Well, as I indicated before these are philosophical and metaphysical questions, so no.
quote:
Actually, it was more of a theological question stemming from the fact that I can't understand what a Judeo-Christian worldview stands to benefit from ID over evolution. The implications don't place the designer, i.e. God, in a very good light.
But perhaps that doesn't really matter. What I firmly detect is that the push to get ID into the classroom has nothing to do with the designer, creator, God, et al. ID supporters oppose evolution because they see it as atheism in sheep's clothing. Their response is a Trojan Horse of their own: theism couched in the guise of "better" science.
Well exactly; it a theological question, not a scientific one, so no one would look to either ID or evolution to answer it.
quote:
In other words, you have no answer.
No more than anyone else on this issue.
quote:
The presence of pain and suffering in the world can be, and has been, addressed very fully by philosophy and religion.
But the best scientific answer ID can offer is, "The designer must either be flawed, or else flawless and dispassionately capricous."
Well yes, exactly. As I have said continually, it is a philosophical and religious question; no science can answer it, nor would anyone expect it to.
quote:
Pain and suffering merely underscore the more fundamental point: why flaw and imperfection? The designer was either incapable of perfection, or else didn't care how much pain and suffering resulted from the designer's deliberate sabotage.
As you have said, it is a religious and philosophical question; ID doesn't address it, nor could it.
quote:
He has said this, or at least to that effect. He obviously doesn't think he is religious. Anyway, I didn't mean to make it seem that I was taking sides with him. My comment was more of a sideline, kind of like, "Gee, that's ironic."
Either way, that is exactly what Dawkins does; conflates his metaphysics and his science.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/23/2008 7:06:56 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 637
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well in a flawed universe to have an information system that maintains itself in the overwhelming number of cases for billions of years indicates incredible capability and sophistication.
It maintains itself, but by evolving, adapting, and mutating. The side effect of this is a whole lot of extinction throughout the ages and some pretty sad misfires of genes-- not just in humans.
What does this scientifically prove about the designer?
quote:
Well, as I indicated before these are philosophical and metaphysical questions, so no.
then what good is it to religious supporters who demand that it be included in science cirriculae?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 4/24/2008 2:39:44 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 487
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:BVZquote:
It assumes the existence of a designer, but refuses to abandon the assumption when no evidence is found to support it.
Evidently you haven’t bothered reading Jack’s posts.
I have read many of his posts.
His 'evidence' pretty much amounts to argument from incredulity every time.
quote:
quote:
Science makes assumptions all the time. But evidence contradicting the assumptions should force the scientist making the assumption to abandon that assumption.
That is exactly why evolution should be dumped, but it won’t because evolution is not science.
If you have something to put on the table, feel free to do so. What is this evidence that you think contradicts the theory of evolution?
quote:
quote:
On the other hand, if a scientific theory based on an assumption creates predictions that turn out to be accurate, the assumptions that spawned the scientific theory gain credibility (even though they might not be intuitive.)
Uh, like the prediction that all information driven nano-machines are designed? That is a prediction that makes ID falsifiable, yet it hasn’t been falsified.
Read what I said again. This time more carefully.
For an assumption to become more credible, predictions made by theories based on that assumption must be shown to be accurate. Your assumption that ALL machines smaller than some arbitrary size (decided by who I wonder?) must be designed, has not been proven. Hence, your assumption has not gained any credibility.
quote:
Compare that with evolution’s prediction that all species will change over time unless they don’t, in which case evolution predicts stasis.
Actually, you have it wrong. Evolution predicts that populations will either change or go extinct when their environment changes in such a way that their current phenotype is no longer well adapted.
This is what we see.
Notice that the environment has to change. If it doesn't the optimal phenotype remains static, and hence, the population remains static as well. (The phenotype at least. Since we don't really have access to much of the genetic material of the creatures in question, it is kind of hard to say if it has changed or not. There are more and less efficient ways of reaching the same optimal phenotype.)
quote:
quote:
Another big problem with ID is Occam's razor. Assuming a designer is exactly that, an assumption.
What does Occam’s razor say about assumptions that have empirical support?
Occam's razor does not specify. It simply states that the theory that uses the LEAST amount of assumptions to make the MOST accurate predictions is the superior theory.
ID makes unnecessary assumptions, that does not increase it's predictive power.
quote:
quote:
Occam's razor simply cuts ID away, since evolution ALREADY explains the diversity of life, WITHOUT making that unnecessary assumption.
This is a laughable abuse of Occam’s razor. Occum’s razor does NOT favor an ASSUMPTION that has absolutely NO empirical support over an assumption that does have empirical support.
Remember, assumptions gain credibility along with the predictions that are ultimately based on them (through scientific theories). If the prediction is shown to be accurate, the assumptions gain credibility.
Evolution is based on certain assumptions (like all scientific theories are), and the predictions made by evolution turn out to be accurate. But only that, THEY TURN OUT TO BE USEFUL. Why do you think companies that create new medicines make use of evolution theory? Do you think they would be doing that if the theory did not make useful predictions?
Now, while we are discussing predictions, what predictions does ID make, that the TOE does NOT make?
quote:
quote:
So it is possible to take the theory of evolution and latch a designer onto that.
It is quite possible to believe the fairytale of evolution and merge it with the evidence for ID. That is why it is wrong to consider ID as an “alternate” to evolution.
Why do you think evolution is a fairy tale? Do you think pharmaceutical companies would be investing money in a fairy tale? You do know that the TOE is being used in genetic algorithms right? You claim that the TOE is a fairy tale does not correlate with reality. I suggest you digest and deal with this fact.
quote:
quote:
We assume that a designer exists.
Actually, rather than assuming a designer exists ID presents evidence supporting the contention that design is required for the origin of information driven nano-machines.
If you have evidence for this, I suggest you present it.
quote:
On the other hand mindless undirected evolution ASSUMES that nature is capable of producing information driven nano-machines through random natural processes. This assumption contradicts the evidence.
Actually, you have it the wrong way around. The development of machines smaller than an arbitrary size (again, who decided what that size should be?) is one of the CONCLUSIONS of the TOE. It is not an assumption. While the TOE DOES make assumptions, this is not one of them. The development of nano machines is a conclusion that is reached from OTHER assumptions.
quote:
Now what?
You could try addressing the OP of this thread even though it has been thoroughly refuted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/23/2008 8:07:54 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
But does a line of computers patterned after a specific design ever mysteriously turn out random, gross aberrations from their initial design? No. So why do humans? What do the proponents of ID propose as the scientific answer to this dilemma?
Sorry to dig up an old topic, but the premise in this analogy so incorrect and teaching others a few things about computers will be useful.
Computers make mistakes all the time due to physical defects and interference from cosmic radiation. We invented error correcting memory (slightly more expensive than non-ecc memory) to detect and correct errors that occur in computers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_random_access_memory#Errors_and_error_correction
expect one bit error, per month, per gigabyte of memory, and much more if your computer is in a space ship hurtling towards Mars unshielded by the Earth's magnetic field. Yes, I have much more than passing knowledge of the RAD6000 processor and the techniques used to keep these computers operational.
The analogy continues though, organisms have error detection and correction faculties for DNA, two versions of each gene and two copies of each version.
< Message edited by swan42 -- 5/23/2008 8:18:34 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/23/2008 10:27:36 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1451
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:swan42quote:
expect one bit error, per month, per gigabyte of memory, and much more if your computer is in a space ship hurtling towards Mars unshielded by the Earth's magnetic field. Yes, I have much more than passing knowledge of the RAD6000 processor and the techniques used to keep these computers operational.
Without the error correction could we expect the space ship to reach Mars with an improved computer or would we expect the computer to be non-operational by the time it got there?
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/23/2008 11:06:30 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:swan42quote:
expect one bit error, per month, per gigabyte of memory, and much more if your computer is in a space ship hurtling towards Mars unshielded by the Earth's magnetic field. Yes, I have much more than passing knowledge of the RAD6000 processor and the techniques used to keep these computers operational.
Without the error correction could we expect the space ship to reach Mars with an improved computer or would we expect the computer to be non-operational by the time it got there?
Oh you have no idea what you are stepping into. In fact, without error correcting memory, there is a small but non-zero chance the space ship would reach Mars with an improved computer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithms
I've had a graduate courses in genetic programming and made a genetic program that identifies gene promoter regions in arbitrary DNA sequences as a mechanism for identifying unidentified genes in a chromosome.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/24/2008 8:45:16 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1451
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:swan42quote:
Oh you have no idea what you are stepping into. In fact, without error correcting memory, there is a small but non-zero chance the space ship would reach Mars with an improved computer.
You really think it might arrive at Mars with an improved computer? That is the sort of thinking I call “pipe-dream”.
Can you cite ANY computer improvements that were made by random changes that slipped by the error correcting memory?
Would you quit your job and use your savings to buy lottery tickets expecting to retire filthy rich? At least with the lottery tickets someone does win giving your rich retirement a MUCH better chance than a non-protected computer landing on Mars with randomly generated improvements.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/24/2008 9:47:02 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 705
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Also I think this site is much better moderated than any site I have posted on, and I think that makes for better discussions; a number of sites that lack such moderation or that are dominated by evolutionists and atheists seem quickly to fall in to ad homs, outright attacks and probably the foulest language I see anywhere on the net; it simply isn't a place where a thinking person should hang out.
You would probably not care for the Creation vs. Evolution forum at Christian Forums. It does tend to be dominated by atheists.
But you might be pleasantly surprised by the Origins Theology forum. This used to be closed to non-Christians and although that has been relaxed a bit, by far the majority of posters are Christian. And the tone is usually quite respectful.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/24/2008 3:54:40 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:swan42quote:
Oh you have no idea what you are stepping into. In fact, without error correcting memory, there is a small but non-zero chance the space ship would reach Mars with an improved computer.
You really think it might arrive at Mars with an improved computer? That is the sort of thinking I call “pipe-dream”.
Can you cite ANY computer improvements that were made by random changes that slipped by the error correcting memory?
Would you quit your job and use your savings to buy lottery tickets expecting to retire filthy rich? At least with the lottery tickets someone does win giving your rich retirement a MUCH better chance than a non-protected computer landing on Mars with randomly generated improvements.
As usual, you don't get it; I've shown that this computer analogy was both completely baseless and simultaneously accurate in a way unintended by the original poster. Now, fine I'll travel down this logic path you want to tread.
Yes, I do think it might arrive at Mars with with an improved computer, but the chances are very very very small, but still non-zero, and we aren't going to launch thousands of such probes just to test this idea; yet it is true. It might arrive at Mars with an improved program. You'll have to wrestle with the notions of improbable vs. impossible to understand.
No, I cannot cite any computer improvements that slipped past error correcting memory that would be missing the point. Error correcting memory explicitly decreases the chances of an memory error occurring and when can error cannot be corrected, the default behavior is to shut down the computer, thus it is really hard for anyone to cite such an example.
I can cite computer improvements that occurred by knowingly introducing random errors. Genetic algorithms create better computer programs all the time by knowingly causing random data errors. Genetic programs create better computer programs by knowingly introducing random changes to the program.
< Message edited by swan42 -- 5/24/2008 4:20:02 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/24/2008 5:34:46 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 1451
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:swan42quote:
No, I cannot cite any computer improvements that slipped past error correcting memory that would be missing the point.
No, that’s not missing the point. That is what your argument claims evolution capable of doing.
quote:
You'll have to wrestle with the notions of improbable vs. impossible to understand.
I understand the difference between improbable nd impossible. However, in real science some things are so improbable that they are considered impossible. If evolution were in fact science it would fall into that category.
Don’t accuse me of getting off tract. The OP is clearly asking for reasons to deny evolution. I deny evolution on the scientific basis that it has absolutely NO empirical support. ANY concept that is so improbable that without empirical support of it actually occurring is not science and should not be taught in the guise of science. It is nothing more than atheist dogma in sheep’s clothing.
_____________________________
Visit my home church.
Also consider Life's Most Important Queston
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/24/2008 10:23:51 PM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 506
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:swan42quote:
No, I cannot cite any computer improvements that slipped past error correcting memory that would be missing the point.
No, that’s not missing the point. That is what your argument claims evolution capable of doing.
quote:
You'll have to wrestle with the notions of improbable vs. impossible to understand.
I understand the difference between improbable nd impossible. However, in real science some things are so improbable that they are considered impossible. If evolution were in fact science it would fall into that category.
Don’t accuse me of getting off tract. The OP is clearly asking for reasons to deny evolution. I deny evolution on the scientific basis that it has absolutely NO empirical support. ANY concept that is so improbable that without empirical support of it actually occurring is not science and should not be taught in the guise of science. It is nothing more than atheist dogma in sheep’s clothing.
Good lord your paranoid delusional frothing is ever tiring.
But even so, arent you a micro evolution supporter monkey? Simple micro-evolution would be analogous to what swat is talking about, as far as the computer improving on its way to mars. He's really providing an example of random mutation, which even you cannot deny happens. You really are off track with all these analogies and really letting it distract you from the issue at hand.
You can only take these computer/life analogies so far before they get you into trouble. Life operates by vastly different rules than a man made computer.
What you are saying is mutations are so improbable that its impossible. Yet they happen every single day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/24/2008 10:44:44 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Would you quit your job and use your savings to buy lottery tickets expecting to retire filthy rich?
Again, a bad analogy that does not advance the poster's purpose.
The problem with this analogy is that someone _will_ win the lottery. There is a guaranteed winner in most if not all lotteries.
Whereas betting on other low probability events does not require the event to occur.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/24/2008 10:47:24 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
What you are saying is mutations are so improbable that its impossible. Yet they happen every single day.
The Black Swan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Yes, the improbable happens every day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/24/2008 10:49:56 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
I understand the difference between improbable nd impossible. However, in real science some things are so improbable that they are considered impossible. If evolution were in fact science it would fall into that category.
The difference between the improbable and the "so improbable it might as well be impossible" is entirely arbitrary. You can draw the line where ever you want. In 'real science' the impact of the improbable is understood within context of the topic and never considered impossible or dismissed as impossible out of hand.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/27/2008 10:58:04 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 874
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
You really think it might arrive at Mars with an improved computer? That is the sort of thinking I call “pipe-dream”.
If the computer were allowed to reproduce it might improve. In fact, engineers use this very same process to design circuits (google "genetic algorithms").
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/27/2008 1:58:18 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6771
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Black Swan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Yes, the improbable happens every day.
But that doesn't compel us to believe the highly improbable - unicorns are of course not impossible, but it would take significant evidence for me to believe they exist.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/27/2008 2:00:22 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6771
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
If the computer were allowed to reproduce it might improve. In fact, engineers use this very same process to design circuits (google "genetic algorithms").
Computer viruses of course reproduce - they even adapt. Are they independently evolving into various sorts of software?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/27/2008 2:47:34 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
If the computer were allowed to reproduce it might improve. In fact, engineers use this very same process to design circuits (google "genetic algorithms").
Computer viruses of course reproduce - they even adapt. Are they independently evolving into various sorts of software?
Bad analogy. Computer viruses do not adapt. They are rewritten by humans.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/27/2008 2:55:51 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
The Black Swan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Yes, the improbable happens every day.
But that doesn't compel us to believe the highly improbable - unicorns are of course not impossible, but it would take significant evidence for me to believe they exist.
Yep that's the root problem you are having.
You won't believe the highly improbable is possible, until it bites you on the nose.
The New Madrid fault zone illustrates a highly improbable but certainly not impossible scenario.
People who live in the mid-west will one day be bitten on the nose when the New Madrid fault zone moves
a little and brings down their unreinforced brick homes. Every day there is a tiny chance this will happen.
In California on the other hand, earthquakes are so common that people believe the improbable "big one" is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/27/2008 3:14:33 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 874
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Computer viruses of course reproduce - they even adapt.
Exactly. Computer viruses evolve because of the two step process of change and selection.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/27/2008 3:44:43 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6771
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yep that's the root problem you are having.
You won't believe the highly improbable is possible, until it bites you on the nose.
The New Madrid fault zone illustrates a highly improbable but certainly not impossible scenario.
People who live in the mid-west will one day be bitten on the nose when the New Madrid fault zone moves
a little and brings down their unreinforced brick homes. Every day there is a tiny chance this will happen.
In California on the other hand, earthquakes are so common that people believe the improbable "big one" is possible.
I have always loved the disparity here.
When an atheist disbelieves what they consider highly improbable, they are a reasonable skeptic.
When a Christian does likewise, they are unreasonable, and have a “problem”.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/27/2008 3:46:26 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 6771
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Exactly. Computer viruses evolve because of the two step process of change and selection.
Apparently you aren't much of a programmer. Computer viruses adapt because they were programmed to do so, plain and simple.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/27/2008 4:07:45 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Exactly. Computer viruses evolve because of the two step process of change and selection.
Apparently you aren't much of a programmer. Computer viruses adapt because they were programmed to do so, plain and simple.
NO they don't. The anti-virus industry describes them has having biological virus qualities, but in practice the computer viruses in the wild are not adapting. Other programmers are changing the virus source code.... ultimately, the biological analogy of a "computer virus" is an incomplete description. Useful to a point, but 100% not useful in a discussion about biological evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Denying evolution - couple of curiousities - 5/27/2008 4:11:44 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 292
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Yep that's the root problem you are having.
You won't believe the highly improbable is possible, until it bites you on the nose.
The New Madrid fault zone illustrates a highly improbable but certainly not impossible scenario.
People who live in the mid-west will one day be bitten on the nose when the New Madrid fault zone moves
a little and brings down their unreinforced brick homes. Every day there is a tiny chance this will happen.
In California on the other hand, earthquakes are so common that people believe the improbable "big one" is possible.
I have always loved the disparity here.
When an atheist disbelieves what they consider highly improbable, they are a reasonable skeptic.
When a Christian does likewise, they are unreasonable, and have a “problem”.
Oh ok.. then can I conclude you do not have a problem believing the improbable is possible?
If so, then we are just left with arguing over little details like which event is more probable than another and whether one event which is less probable than a 2nd improbable event occurred even though it is more probable for the 2nd event to have occurred. It's just details after that. There's no disparity, just details and more details.
< Message edited by swan42 -- 5/27/2008 4:18:15 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
