32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 01:51 pm
@Herald,
Quote:

Try to draw and paint a butterfly on a sheet of paper by picking the colour of the pixels at random (by a roulette or electronic dices or whatever). You may perform as many trials as you wish.
Then select the best pictures, choose pixels to amend ... and amend them again with the dices.


Of course, I couldn't pick pixels on a sheet of paper since paper doesn't have pixels.

A computer screen does have pixels and this could be done in a matter of nanoseconds on a computer. I would bet that 90% of the time within 200 turns I would be able to create a picture that would be recognizable as a butterfly. In 400 turns it would be recognizable 100% of the time. I just wrote a simple program to prove this. Using 256 colors, about 90% of the pixels would be the correct color.

By doing a simple adjust that keeps close colors while looking for correct colors I would have a recognizable butterfly 100% of the time in 200 turns.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 01:56 pm
@parados,
which butterfly is Herald speaking? . There are an estimated 15000 species of butterflies and up to 200000 species of moths. I assumethat you could get damn close to reality almost with any random color generation
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 02:16 pm
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:

The next quote of yours basically answers your "not sure if that's correct"..


What does that mean???

Quote:
I still disagree.


With what? Try to write complete sentences, Jimmy, so I can understand what you are talking about.

Quote:
I'll preface by asking you a question.


You are way past the "preface" stage, Jimmy, but I will read your question.

Quote:
Do you believe in unicorns?


If by that you mean, “Do I believe unicorns exist?”…I will answer it “No.”

Quote:
We can have that discussion if you want.


Really.

You make an assertion: “I simply say it's far more likely that gods do not exist.”

I ask you to substantiate the assertion…and instead of doing so, you are asking to discuss unicorns!!!

Sorry, Jimmy, I thought you knew how this works.

I will happily discuss unicorns with you right after you present your substantiation for your assertion (and we discuss it for a bit)…or you acknowledge that you cannot substantiate it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 02:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
By the way, if when you asked, "Do you believe in unicorns?"...you actually were asking "Are there any unicorns? (a different question from "Do you believe unicorns exist?"...my answer would be "I do not know."

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:03 pm
@JimmyJ,
Quote:
The flaws I pointed out are in every human. At some point in our long history we developed them and they became a problem for us.


If they are flaws in an evolutionary context how did evolution produce such flaws and why have they not caused us to become extinct?

Instead, up till now, we have throve. It is a mystery why we have developed the characteristics you claim are flaws but it is not a mystery that the human race has thrived with them, and thus they must not be flaws at all and, like all characteristics of extant life forms have a beneficial function.

One might say it is a problem that we have five fingers because the pain from trapping them in a door would be less if we only had four.

Getting food and drink in the tracheae might be the result of eating and drinking carelessly such as when having a mouthful of meat pie and a swig of beer when somebody tells a good joke, I often have coughing fits when reading posts on A2K whilst having my supper.

Do you think evolution is telling me that I should stop reading posts on here whilst having my supper like my legs tell me when to knock off running.

And it's obvious what use a blind spot is because they enable Apisa to be able to not see the writing on the wall and thus to pose as a superior life form. That's one of the reasons evolution positioned our arseholes where it doo. Had it not been a blind spot we would probably never have had any philosophers and intellectuals. That's why farts are so funny. Only deaf people have a blind spot for farts but they can usually detect them by nasal operations. Or, if they are their own farts, by a fluttering sensation in the nipsy of a range of frequencies I assume you are familiar with and thus I can afford to avoid the distasteful talk of describing them.



Isn't evolution perfection becoming? How can we have hereditary flaws?
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:13 pm
Spendius wrote:
Isn't evolution perfection becoming? How can we have hereditary flaws?


Evolution doesn't care about what the subjects of its workings may think of its accomplishments.

Given enough time, these flaws will vanish or their bearers will..
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 03:28 pm
Herald is just playing a variation on the religionists' "at random theme," such as their idiotic one about a tornado in a junkyard creating a 747. Evolution is not random. Any variation, any mutation which does not maintain or enhance reproductive opportunity is "ruthlessly" eliminated. (Ruthelessly is, of course, a silly modifier to use, because there is not intent in evolution, just cause and effect--but i use it to underline that failure to reproduced eliminates traits almost immediately.) Mutation and other forms of variation may occur at random, but they still run up against the brick wall of breeding. If you don't pass on your traits, you traits are eliminated.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 04:28 pm
@timur,
Quote:
Evolution doesn't care about what the subjects of its workings may think of its accomplishments.


It couldn't. It is a process and thus can't care about anything.

Isn't the whole point of providing an Author of the process, a personification of the process, who does care, to avoid the outcome of failing to provide one. Whatever other characteristics the Author is provided with.

You would be most unlikely to be in the position you are in had such an Author not been provided. The natives Darwin met in Tierra del Fuego are a much more likely possibility.

Apisa doesn't see that we needn't believe in the guess we make, and cannot be expected to, so long as we act as if we do. Which applies to the scientific materialist as well as to the Christian.

I can make the scientific materialist case better than I have seen anybody do on A2K. It might well be necessary if the Christian case starts looking wobbly under modern economic conditions. Less tolerance might be something to consider due to the fragile nature of the edifice we have constructed. Similarly with the constitutional case.

Not guessing at all is patently ridiculous because then you have no way to act except biologically. As a tube with a hole at each end containing a reproductive organ. Scientific materialists and Christians would both put a stop to that sort of thing.

I accept that "ridiculous" is anthropomorphic and has no meaning to a tube with a hole at each end containing a reproductive organ.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 06:20 pm
@spendius,
I gather that the scientific geologists are in a dispute over who owns the North Pole. Optimistic experts reckon it will take about 200 years for them to cobble together a compromise unless one of the parties simply occupies it before that happens.
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 06:49 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You said "I'm not sure if that's correct" when I told you that we don't try to prove negatives in science.

I disagree with you claiming that we have to somehow prove that god DOESN'T exist.

Prove to me that unicorns do not exist, then.

And okay, I will discuss my "assertion" with you. It is far more likely that god does not exist rather than he does exist. There are many reasons for my assertion here, but I will just list a few. The imperfection in nature being one of them. If a god existed, and god is considered to be some sort of evolutionary "designer", you'd think his designs would be better. If god existed, why would he allow children whom have not even started their lives to die? Would that not make him malicious? Why is there pointless suffering? If god existed why does he make himself hidden? What would the world be like if there was an all-powerful being behind everything? If you say that today's world is what it would look like I'd implore you to defend that viewpoint.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Dec, 2013 10:58 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I think guessing whether there is a GOD or not...is an absurdity and not worth the effort.

Why is it 'absurdity' and how did you come to know that it doesn't worth the effort. In order to claim such a thing you have to know a priori all the answers to all possible questions and of all possible questions that will be asked subsequently ... what and how the people will answer to this and that, and should have also an assessment of the efforts in achieving all plausible interpretations ... and hardly after weighing both you may say whether you have 'accounting loss' or 'economic profit'.

further wrote:
I'm not sure what you think the atheists have to prove

... that there is no God in any definition of the term. The intelligence in the universe does not exist in any understanding of the world, it is impossible in any case scenario and the world is driving along a casino rail or whatever it might be there.

further wrote:
Most of them here claim they are doing nothing more than acknowledging that they do not "believe" in any gods.

I also don't believe in a lot of things, like for example I do not believe that we understand the world in which we are living ... but I do not engage the population on the web with my disbeliefs ... and with what I am not thinking and not believing, and I don't claim that everybody who is thinking that he understands the world in which we are living is such & such.

further wrote:
I do not "believe" there are any gods. I also do not "believe" there are no gods. I simply do not do any "believing" on this question.

... and I don't believe that you can express your understanding of the things properly (in a way for the other people to understand what you are saying, or trying to say ... or thinking you are saying ... or whatever).
So, you are fan of the agnosticism and you don't believe in the truth values of some claims. You think that we are missing key information about the history record of the universe,
... hence it doesn't matter what you are thinking for this information that you may provide with your reasoning sooner or later will be lost without any trace and the fact that you cannot tell for sure when the point of losing will happen does not change anything.
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 01:25 am
@Herald,
You are in desperate need of some type of critical thinking/logic-based class.

The fact that you think you're slinging around "zingers" and that you actually think you're shooting down arguments is astounding.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 05:45 am
@JimmyJ,
Herald is an example of how, as a nation, weve developed a very comfortable relationship with mediocrity and tribal myth in the sciences.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 07:46 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Herald is an example of how, as a nation, weve developed a very comfortable relationship with mediocrity and tribal myth in the sciences.


How is it working out?

Would we have a more or a less comfortable relationship under the grinding heel of a self-righteous scientific elite than we do under the somewhat tolerant auspices of our dear mediocrity.

Every mouse, every midge and every marsupial that I have ever seen looks to be the perfect epitome of mediocrity. Do you not understand evolution at all? Every whale blows off and rolls over in an extremely mediocre manner.

You silly old moocow.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 07:54 am
@farmerman,
That's what you get when you put Dylan on Ignore.


I'm just average, common too
I'm just like him, the same as you
I'm everybody's brother and son
I ain't different than anyone
It ain't no use a-talking to me
It's just the same as talking to you.

I bet you just love I Did It My Way. Have you seen Sid Vicious do it?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 08:37 am
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:

You said "I'm not sure if that's correct" when I told you that we don't try to prove negatives in science.


Yes I did. And I am not sure.

Quote:
I disagree with you claiming that we have to somehow prove that god DOESN'T exist.


Use the quote function, Jimmy, so you don't have to make statements like this one above.

I never claimed that you have to somehow prove that god doesn't exist.

So you are disagreeing with something I never asserted.

Quote:
Prove to me that unicorns do not exist, then.


Why would I have to do that? I have never asserted that unicorns do not exist!

Quote:
And okay, I will discuss my "assertion" with you. It is far more likely that god does not exist rather than he does exist. There are many reasons for my assertion here, but I will just list a few. The imperfection in nature being one of them. If a god existed, and god is considered to be some sort of evolutionary "designer", you'd think his designs would be better. If god existed, why would he allow children whom have not even started their lives to die? Would that not make him malicious? Why is there pointless suffering? If god existed why does he make himself hidden? What would the world be like if there was an all-powerful being behind everything? If you say that today's world is what it would look like I'd implore you to defend that viewpoint.


None of that goes to the issue of "likelyhood" at all, Jimmy. A GOD could want existence to go on without ITS involvement. The fact that children die; that there is suffering; that we cannot see any GODS...or any of that other stuff does not in any way indicate that a GOD does not exist.

We had a guy here at one time...Ican...who spent two years preparing a detailed mathematical proof of the existence of GOD. It was shown to be faulty...and it had much, much more substance than your supposed support for the assertion of, "It is far more likely that gods do not exist."

If you do come up with something of substance...rather than just presenting an anti-theistic screed, I'd be interested in it.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 08:46 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I think guessing whether there is a GOD or not...is an absurdity and not worth the effort.

Why is it 'absurdity' and how did you come to know that it doesn't worth the effort. In order to claim such a thing you have to know a priori all the answers to all possible questions and of all possible questions that will be asked subsequently ...


Hearald, in order to make the claim that I think guessing...is an absurdity and not worth the effort...all I have to do is to think that. I do not have to know any of that other crap.

Nice try, though.

Quote:
further wrote:
I'm not sure what you think the atheists have to prove

... that there is no God in any definition of the term. The intelligence in the universe does not exist in any understanding of the world, it is impossible in any case scenario and the world is driving along a casino rail or whatever it might be there.


I do not understand your point here.

What do atheists have to prove?

Quote:

further wrote:
I do not "believe" there are any gods. I also do not "believe" there are no gods. I simply do not do any "believing" on this question.

... and I don't believe that you can express your understanding of the things properly (in a way for the other people to understand what you are saying, or trying to say ... or thinking you are saying ... or whatever).
So, you are fan of the agnosticism and you don't believe in the truth values of some claims. You think that we are missing key information about the history record of the universe,
... hence it doesn't matter what you are thinking for this information that you may provide with your reasoning sooner or later will be lost without any trace and the fact that you cannot tell for sure when the point of losing will happen does not change anything.



Whatever!

There are people in this world who "believe" there are gods.

I am not one of them.

There are also people in this world who "believe" there are no gods.

I am not one of them either.

I do not "believe" there are any gods. I also do not "believe" there are no gods. I simply do not do any "believing" on this question.

If you cannot understand that...it is your problem not mine. I think it is expressed very clearly.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 08:59 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
What do atheists have to prove?


That they can run things better. Otherwise they are only wittering.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 09:26 am
@spendius,
Define "things". Try to be explicit..
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 10:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
But it is correct regardless of whether you are sure or not.

The unicorn example is just me asserting that unicorns do not exist without having to prove it, because you don't have to prove a negative! And that's my point.

It doesn't take mathematical calculation to see that god most likely doesn't exist. All it takes is examination of what a world with god would look like, and realization that in all regards this world comes up short.
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/20/2025 at 01:20:44