95
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2021 11:19 pm
@edgarblythe,
"Jazz it up," nothing.

Code:
#include <SFML/Graphics.hpp>

int main(int argc, char **argv) {
sf::RenderWindow window;
sf::Event event;

sf::RectangleShape box(sf::Vector2f(32, 32));
box.setFillColor(sf::Color::White);
box.setOrigin(16, 32);

box.setPosition(320, 240);

window.create(sf::VideoMode(640, 480), "Jumping Box [cursor keys + space]");
window.setFramerateLimit(60);
window.setVerticalSyncEnabled(false);

// player position
sf::Vector2f pos(320, 240);

// player velocity (per frame)
sf::Vector2f vel(0, 0);

// gravity (per frame)
sf::Vector2f gravity(0, .5f);

// max fall velocity
const float maxfall = 5;

// run acceleration
const float runacc = .25f;

// max run velocity
const float maxrun = 2.5f;

// jump acceleration
const float jumpacc = -1;

// number of frames to accelerate in
const unsigned char jumpframes = 10;

// counts the number of frames where you can still accelerate
unsigned char jumpcounter = 0;

// inputs
bool left = false;
bool right = false;
bool jump = false;

while (window.isOpen()) {
while (window.pollEvent(event)) {
switch(event.type) {
case sf::Event::KeyPressed:
case sf::Event::KeyReleased:
switch (event.key.code) {
case sf::Keyboard::Escape:
window.close();
break;
case sf::Keyboard::Left:
left = event.type == sf::Event::KeyPressed;
break;
case sf::Keyboard::Right:
right = event.type == sf::Event::KeyPressed;
break;
case sf::Keyboard::Space:
jump = event.type == sf::Event::KeyPressed;
break;
}
break;
case sf::Event::Closed:
window.close();
break;
}
}

// logic update start

// first, apply velocities
pos += vel;

// determine whether the player is on the ground
const bool onground = pos.y >= 480;

// now update the velocity by...
// ...updating gravity
vel += gravity;

// ...capping gravity
if (vel.y > maxfall)
vel.y = maxfall;

if (left) { // running to the left
vel.x -= runacc;
}
else if (right) { // running to the right
vel.x += runacc;
}
else { // not running anymore; slowing down each frame
vel.x *= 0.9;
}

// jumping
if (jump) {
if (onground) { // on the ground
vel.y += jumpacc * 2;
jumpcounter = jumpframes;
}
else if (jumpcounter > 0) { // first few frames in the air
vel.y += jumpacc;
jumpcounter--;
}
}
else { // jump key released, stop acceleration
jumpcounter = 0;
}

// check for collision with the ground
if (pos.y > 480) {
vel.y = 0;
pos.y = 480;
}

// check for collision with the left border
if (pos.x < 16) {
vel.x = 0;
pos.x = 16;
}
else if (pos.x > 624) {
vel.x = 0;
pos.x = 624;
}


// logic update end

// update the position
box.setPosition(pos);

window.clear();
window.draw(box);
window.display();
}
return 0;
}


Here's a simple gravity code. But it's for a 2D abstraction not a 3D object, and it's probably only for one object, since code usually has to call objects (unless you make the code create objects on demand). With me so far? To create new objects requires input. A code that repeats a command to create things without any sense of commands or restrictions is a virus. It will keep creating until it clogs up the computer. Now, there is not just one object, there are all the objects even on a subatomic level. Nor is there just one law or force. Suppose you had to run the processes of a single planet using C++ code. It would probably eat up more memory than a single computer could hold!

Evolving on its own? You couldn't make this process happen with a series of supercomputers! They made a big fuss about Watson. But truth be told that was slightly better than what a very knowledgeable human could do, in about ten or twenty times the space. And it still based on somewhat faulty logic. They showed the behind-the-scenes of getting Watson having severe trouble with the logic of decision making. They had to calibrate it quite a bit to make it show-ready. What codes call "garbage in, garbage out." A team of programmers, and they can barely make it as smart as one human for human decisions (what it was designed for was not to hold facts but to beat humans in being human, which it more or less failed at). Evolved on its own? Make one code that creates an object, and then has it turn into something else (a morphing animation). Code this by tomorrow. This is basically mostly covered under Photoshop stuff, but we'd be talking about billions of "objects" that can also think and move and live. Yeaaaaah, good luck with that.

Remember, I expect it done by tomorrow.
Jasper10
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2021 02:27 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Come on guys ……The cosmos and our physical bodies are electromechanical systems which create binary digital code…you don’t just get 0,1…1,0 logic with binary code you also get 0,0..1,1 logic as well..As modern day science only accepts 0,1…1,0 logic because that is its philosophy it is presently stuck with its gravity theory which doesn’t explain the overall working of the cosmos or the physical body.Only electromechanical principles can explain both.This is why modern day science can’t explain what causes Big Bangs …it is simply because they will not accept 0,0 and 1,1 philosophy at the fundamental level….Their one sided possibility belief systems are based upon 0,1…1,0 logic only.Once you start accepting electromechanical systems then you get into sinusoidal electrical waveforms and then it starts getting very interesting….haha…get real ….this is real science…wake up
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2021 03:28 am
@Jasper10,
There are so many NEARLY NIHILISTS out there who sit on the HALF logic 0,1..1,0 possibility fence of their own making….and completely ignore the other HALF logic 0,0…1,1 possibilities which reside on the other side of the TRUE nihilistic fence. Pasacal tried to warn people about only adopting half logic possibilities and to at least cover your bet but then it has to be accepted that fools won’t listen.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2021 04:17 am
@The Anointed,
That's because you don't understand much Cobber.

Stick to changing letters on words.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2021 05:17 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:

All I’ve been doing is citing scientific facts and challenging you to find fault with them
you are really overstating "hat youve provided to me" Id call them "Just So Tales" allegories with religious bases and no VIDENCE. Ive provided you excerpts, references, findings and published data.
When I ask you to read something I give you "fer instances and points of scientific reference"

You started a eakneed discussion of Karl Woes , then quit when you realized I added to his work and added a few more similar workers and what weve learnt about gene ransfers.

you posted meyers "God Hypothesis" I wonder why the book insisted on the word "HYPOTHESIS "in its tile.

I am open for good detail discussions, not youre passive/aggressive word and title salads. Cmon throw out something besides DI tag lines. I dont care about your religiosu beliefs, I have no fer whether its possible or even rel, you miss the point that noones even come up with any research or even ideas about ID as a working model.

and when you quit your attempts at argument, why quit at a creation story. why not try your stories wiyh evolved species.
science has shown, with evidence that (and this was simplified by Bob HAzens' mineralogical work. He(without saying it) has come up with a severalstep pogram that allows arliest life to develop duplication of its initial archaean life form then, as time moved on, and self assembly has been worked out ,it developed reproduction and genomic reprints with the several means of insertion of multimorphism and inheritance with modification. and thats been a model that you claim i only of concern in that it(you assert) supports ye "scientific" hypothesis that loses any argument when you ignore evolutionary adaptation.

I note that youre amazingly silent to comment about our present visitor carrying this disease.
Its amazingly Darwinian , isnt it?




farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2021 05:23 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:

What Thundering ignorance
PS
name me just one place where ID has gotten it right

name me one piace of reserch that you ID Creationists have completed that hasnt been debunked or , worse, hasnt shown us to be a total lie. IF YOU IGNORE ANSWERING THIS< I WILL FIND A FEW AND ADRESS EM TO YOU and any one who cares about the subject.

why not start with a simple pragraph statenmt of your "proteins first " hypotheses and Ill post some of what real science has done with this (beginning with Miller and Urey as more modern starting points)
The Anointed
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2021 10:56 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
name me just one place where ID has gotten it right


We know that the Space Ship evolved from the wheel, and we know the evolutionary process of intelligent design, by which the Space Ship evolved.

We also know that the earth crawling caterpillar, builds itself a tomb in which its body dies and decomposes into a juicy puddle, from which decomposed body, the Butterfly with its gorgeous coloured wings and power of flight is created.

Now, can you explain the entire process of the evolution of a beautiful Butterfly from a drab old Caterpillar, without introducing intelligent design? And I might add, without revealing your ignorance to the process of evolution by intelligent Design.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2021 11:16 pm
@The Anointed,
bad examples. space ships and wheels are not in any sense biological. they have no anaogue of dna to evolve they're purely constructs of the human brsain. and space ships did not come from wheels in any menaingulf sense they came from robert goddard's experiments with liquid fuelded rockets in the 3os, totally different principles than the wheel.so thart proves nothing. and caterpillears changing into butterlies is not evoluton, it's biology and no need for a creator. that's just hyour insecurity speaking.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2021 11:35 pm
@MontereyJack,
not all that dissimilar from mexican umping beans, and no i.d. needed there.
0 Replies
 
The Anointed
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 4 Dec, 2021 11:40 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
bad examples. space ships and wheels are not in any sense biological. they have no anaogue of dna to evolve they're purely constructs of the human brsain. and space ships did not come from wheels in any menaingulf sense they came from robert goddard's experiments with liquid fuelded rockets in the 3os, totally different principles than the wheel.so thart proves nothing. and caterpillears changing into butterlies is not evoluton, it's biology and no need for a creator. that's just hyour insecurity speaking.


When the wheel was first created did the creator of the first mobile load carrying cart, look to the heavens and wonder if one day a vehicle might be created to carry loads to the stars?

Irrelevant as to what was in the mind of the creator, after thousands and thousands of years and millions upon millions of creations that evolved from the wheel, each creation being an expression of the heights to which the mind of the creator had evolved with each subsequent creation, until finally the mind of the creator had evolved to the point that He could say; "And Now, let 'US' create the space ship in order to visit and colonise the heavens.

There was intelligent design in the evolution of the Space Ship from the wheel, and IMO, there is intelligent design in the evolution of the beautiful flying Butterfly from the drab earth crawling caterpillar.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2021 03:02 am
@Jasper10,
The electromechanical digital system (brain) kicks out ALL logic output possibility combinations not just the HALF….i.e. 0,1…1,0…..which is directly related to good is bad and bad is good philosophy.

The electromechanical digital system will ALWAYS provide FULL logic output possibilities when it cannot provide a definitive answer to a question…i.e. it will always counter o,1…1,0 logic with 0,0…1,1 logic….. as alternative possibilities.

SELF then has to make a decision…CHOOSE…..

Our physical bodies including our brains are electromechanical digital systems.

The cosmos as well is an electromechanical system.

Now where does the gravity theory fit into all that?…….Has anyone got a sensible response …..…to counter the above?
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2021 03:21 am
@Jasper10,
The gravity theory is about as much use as a chocolate fire guard…it’s a lame one sided theory and definitely not a cross science team player….

All sciences are interconnected after all….
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2021 07:02 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:

“All I’ve been doing is citing scientific facts and challenging you to find fault with them”

Farmer replied:
you are really overstating "hat youve provided to me" Id call them "Just So Tales" allegories with religious bases and no VIDENCE.


If I am telling 'Just So Tales' then it should be easy for you to find many scientific errors in it. I’ve not heard you come up with any.

And if you need an example of a real 'Just So Tale', here is a prime example.

Quote:
science has shown, with evidence that (and this was simplified by Bob HAzens' mineralogical work. He(without saying it) has come up with a severalstep pogram that allows arliest life to develop duplication of its initial archaean life form then, as time moved on, and self assembly has been worked out ,it developed reproduction and genomic reprints with the several means of insertion of multimorphism and inheritance with modification.


I particularly liked the part about “as time moved on and 'self assembly' has been worked out…”.

My protein argument is a direct challenge to this 'argument', in case you didn’t get it.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2021 07:16 am
@Leadfoot,
your assertions are how ID has directed these facts. All youve done is cherry picked stuff that cience has made clearly unerstood.
You avoid the pathways your designer took. Also , are you saying your IDer stopped after life ws created. ?
Creation CCEand evolution re two totally different topics. One is applied natural cience , the other is theoretical (or in your case, SUPERNATURAL SCIENCE)

Here you go again.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2021 07:30 am
@farmerman,
it should be easy for you to find many scientific errors in it. I’ve not heard you come up with any.

Ive really not done any thinking about your minds own methodology since no evience hs been presented by you, how can arguments be constructed besides another ad nihilo BS. Ive given you factual chemitry, youve begun your creation stories well into the timeleine life has alredy been on . Youve created life before you assembled any of the contruction blocks. When you criticized my Hazen analogy, it mrely tells me that you hve no clue as to what your even thinking about.

Youve created an electrical engine powered auto as a magical ad nihilo activity (my parallel). I insist that you must start with the wheel and static electricity.

I cannot deal with obstinate obtus
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2021 07:34 am
@farmerman,
I meanr to say "obstinate obtuseness". (I wasnt sure whether it as your obtusity or your obtuseness-hdda look it up)
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 5 Dec, 2021 08:06 am
@farmerman,
Always Stones, nothing but stones
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2021 09:07 am
@Leadfoot,
A stumbling block to those who do not believe.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2021 10:17 am
@Leadfoot,
I only throw when you pick up your own rock and chuck em at me.
PS, gonna repeat your grand "theory". Always falling to your patented passive aggresive ways of communication eh?

Cmon why wont you debate me about your own recommended book about the "God Hypothesis"??
.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2021 10:23 am
All this talk of just so stories but no mention of best beloved.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 07:55:13