Evolution vs. Creation

Bluenose wrote:

Hmm... looks like So your insane's user name is causing Topix issues when quoting him. Let's see if we can find out ho to resolve this...
<quoted text>
<quoted text>

PROFESSOR X wrote:

<quoted text>
I know ... but someones got to help him get back to reality. It's not an accident that Darwin's theory is defended more by books and movies of science-FICTION than the scientific evidence. Too bad many of these scientist hide behind their degrees and unproven press releases in order to create the illusion of being authoritative, meanwhile they are busy behind the scenes censoring any and all scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's theory from reaching the public. They are also censoring professors in universities from exposing any information to the public that threatens their little monkey fairy-tale.
The roles have been reversed. The atheist and evolutionist is today - what the Catholic Church was in the past. They hate scientific advance and would rather shut down public discussion before confronting evidence that proves that all life did not arise from one common ancestor.
That doesn't mean that the earth has to be 6000 year old. But isn't it amazing how humans were suppose to have evolved from Apes 3 million years ago, but there are organisms that are in rock strata dated over 300 million years old that are still ALIVE TODAY and they are unchanged? What's so special about us that it's necessary for evolutionists invent pseudo-science stories only fit for the Sci-Fi Channel?
Darwinism Destroyed by Geological Evidence & Anomalies
http://cross.tv/64437

Obama Eats Dogs wrote:

<quoted text>You are correct. Not to mention the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson Particle or "God's particle" being looked at at the Hadron Super Collider.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, I noticed that and suspected it was the period.
BTW, how ya doing you old pirate you?

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh Jeez. Talk about lame. The Higgs Boson is not proof of a god.

Judged:

1

1

1

Obama Eats Dogs wrote:

<quoted text>You are correct. Not to mention the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson Particle or "God's particle" being looked at at the Hadron Super Collider.

LowellGuy wrote:

That would be great. There would be no extinctions, and every organism would be both perfectly suited for its niche and completely flexible should its environment change in any way. Yes, it would be a better design.

rpk58 wrote:

When an ASIC has a design flaw, designers go back to the drawing board, re-design and fix it. Nature doesn't do that. In evolution features that were evolved for certain uses, are then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether.
This is not a very efficient or optimal design. It is a suboptimal design and is due to the inability of the evolutionary mechanism to eliminate the vestiges of the evolutionary process.
An example is the blind spot in the vertebrate eye. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it, and the point where they enter the eyeball is a blind spot. In octopus, the eye evolved separately, and differently. There the nerves and blood vessels are behind the retina, and thus there is no blind spot.
This is an argument against design in nature. If an engineering team develops a camera with a blind spot, they will be asked to throw out the faulty design and start afresh. They could do that, and start from a blank drawing board and come out with a better design. If there was an intelligent designer in nature who designed the vertebrate eye, then on discovering the blind spot the designer could re-do the design without the blind spot. And it is not difficult - it has been already done for octopus; why not re-use the design of the octopus eye?
So the kind of sub-optimal design present in the vertebrate eye (which includes the human eye) clearly supports the fact that there was no intelligent designer involved. It evolved naturally, and if its design was sub-optimal, nature cannot go back - it will only patch up the defect in future evolutions thus trying to make up for the defect.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok. Suppose I then wanted to create some kind of rewarding and punishment mechanism for my nice little created machines. I would then program in them a sort of measurement system for "pleasure" vs. "pain" and also "happiness" vs. "sorrow". Just a simulated concept, so these four features are just virtual but the programming makes sure that their functioning is greatly affected by these measured values. I would then in the programming associate the pleasure/pain concept to something physical (sensors) and then happiness/sorrow would just be a method of affecting how their software programs run. So their operation would be greatly affected by physical pain/pleasure and virtual happiness/sorrow. I would then allow their programming to adapt itself and modify itself and the input for doing so can only come from the simulated feelings (physical and virtual).
I would make their programming work so that if their operation goes against the fundamental rules I set for them to avoid them becoming destructive, the programming by itself would cause them to malfunction in some reasonable manner. That part of the programming I would make nonvolatile so they could not "adapt it away".
So they now have built in "morals" to follow, and their own programming will cause effects in their perception of their physical body according to how well they can follow those rules. So if one specific machine becomes "extremely destructive", the programming would cause it to "die". I would not delete the evolved program of that particular machine, I would just put it in a temporary punishment where it "feels" significant pain for a while and is given instructions on how it failed. Then I would put it back into a new machine again to have a new go at learning something more in the machine world.
Would that be a fair design for them if I wanted them to learn on their own and not just put everything in place at once? This way they could become individuals by exercising their own choices.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Your problem there is still that the ASIC does not evolve, it is STATIC. A new ASIC spin needs to be designed, the changes to the design may be relatively small, yet they have to be made and it is a new design v1.01.
The best design is something that evolves by itself. Then it does not have to be redesigned. Agree?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Your problem there is still that the ASIC does not evolve, it is STATIC. A new ASIC spin needs to be designed, the changes to the design may be relatively small, yet they have to be made and it is a new design v1.01.
The best design is something that evolves by itself. Then it does not have to be redesigned. Agree?

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, evolution is prone to the laws of thermal dynamics, as we see in the human body. Chaos is happening, we are the peak of evolution, all species alive today essentially, because the redundant and vestigial organs as the result of evolution, as well as an interdependence on other organisms, has inherently produced a highly unstable system. In essence, like the dinosaurs, the reign of mammals is close to an end, unless we change ourselves, we will also fall as a species. Our technology gives us that power, our science gives us the knowledge, and our humanism gives us the will. Religion is currently just in the way.
Remember, in any situation of survival, the simplest organism is the most likely to survive. We are far from simple.

KittenKoder wrote:

Comparing inorganic to the organic is a failed fallacy. They are not the same. Organic molecular reactions are not static, they are constant and abide by chemical laws. Any organic self replicating system is not only prone to evolve, it is prone to change, simply by it's own nature. So you are comparing something that changes simply by replicating, to something that has no potential to change at all and must be acted on to change. Apples and oranges.

KittenKoder wrote:

Actually, evolution is prone to the laws of thermal dynamics, as we see in the human body. Chaos is happening, we are the peak of evolution, all species alive today essentially, because the redundant and vestigial organs as the result of evolution, as well as an interdependence on other organisms, has inherently produced a highly unstable system. In essence, like the dinosaurs, the reign of mammals is close to an end, unless we change ourselves, we will also fall as a species. Our technology gives us that power, our science gives us the knowledge, and our humanism gives us the will. Religion is currently just in the way.
Remember, in any situation of survival, the simplest organism is the most likely to survive. We are far from simple.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
We already established that if your god was real, and created the world, then he also created evil. We don't need to be reminded of just how much hatred your god has for his own work.

Maccoat wrote:

<quoted text> Note that the second law of thermodynamics states that chaos would increase in a CLOSED system. Earth is not a closed system. there is the sun who provide constant energy to the earth, so it is not a closed system so evolution is not exposed to the second law.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Why are you clueless? Go back to sleep.
I am NOT talking about YOUR EVOLUTION. I am talking about designing something static versus designing something that improves itself.

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
One more example of his 'work'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_worm