Replies

So far, you are the only person that has considered "The Sims" as other than a game.

Just because one cannot simulate all of reality does not imply that one cannot simulate some of reality. You better hope that people can simulate things such as nuclear reactor and weapons safety. Your life does depend on these simulations. Do you feel lucky? Well, do you?

No one needs models of evolution as proof. Creationists seem to be unable to grasp the idea that scientific theories do not require proof nor can any theory be proven.

Creationists seem to be unable to grasp the idea that scientific theories do not require proof nor can any theory be proven.

It's just one of his moronically-recycled word games, where he equivocates the meaning of "proof." He'll use it as though it meant "demonstration of metaphysical certitude," but when challenged, he'll claim he only meant "evidence." He's used this bait'n'switch tactic dating back two years, and was called on it back then.

Yet he's back yet again to make a raving fool of himself, using the same tired, fallacious argument......

But what can one expect from a person who thinks that nuclear fission is a "chemical reaction," that "a circle is not an ellipse," that "1⁷²⁰" is a really big number, that the planets whiz around in "wildly elliptical" orbits, and that infrared radiation causes sunburn?

You better hope that people can simulate things such as nuclear reactor and weapons safety. Your life does depend on these simulations.

There is a difference between such simulations (as well as others such as for planes, cars, etc.) , a big difference. First of all, in such simulations, the forces in question, the things being tested are known. They deal with well verified forces for which there are formulas which have been tested numerous times in real life. Computers are good at math and can thus include these well tested formulas in their simulations and use them in their tests.

However, even then, the simulations are not the end of the testing. There is still considerable testing done after the simulations are done. There is real life testing that proceeds afterwards.

The simulation here fails in all the above respects. It is trying to prove a theory which has not been proven in real life. It is trying to simulate a theory for which there are no verified formulas. It is trying to do simulate something which cannot be tested in real life (from the article: " to create a road map detailing the evolution of complex organisms, an old problem in biology."). So therefore, this simulation is pure bunk as I have been saying. The best use that can be made of it is turn it into a game. Maybe then they can repay the public moneys these folk have been wasting.