Posted on 02/08/2003 7:54:52 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
It is all relative my boy, someday you will learn that dishonesty is in the ear of the receiver. Honesty is wasted on people like you, and you have probably had little experience with it. Give me one reason why anyone would be willing to share anything they value with you, you have not shown yourself worthy of trust. Mostly, people tell you what you want to hear merely so that you will go away. Have I hit a chord?
Errrrmmm... This doesn't really follow, chemistry-wise. You might want to revise your math.
I would point out that while evolution is a valid mathematical concept (you DID know it has a proper mathematical derivation, didn't you?), that there is no proper proof that it has anything to do with speciation even if a new species evolved in front of your eyes. In fact, there is more than one viable non-evolutionary hypothesis in circulation. That said, no one (least of all ID folk) has been able to attack the fundamentals of evolution hypothesis, primarily because everyone accepts that the necessary premises exist (selection and variation). The rest is just argument fodder and most of the competing hypotheses have premises that haven't stood up nearly as well to scrutiny (including many non-ID, non-religious purely scientific alternative hypotheses, which do exist).
I would point out the difference between "artificial" and "natural" is purely semantic. The universe can't tell the difference, and it is trivial to construct an example of why this is. Any argument against this will have to be stronger than an arbitrary semantic classification.
Evidence for, not proof. That said, he was using the correct mathematical definition of "program". You, on the other hand, apparently are not. If you want to make a rigorous argument, you have to use a rigorous definition. I would suggest Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications (Li & Vitanyi) if you want to argue down this path. It is a good book for learning about what you are attempting to talk about.
I think a lot of interesting arguments can happen in this vein, but most people who try are woefully unprepared math-wise (it is usually graduate or post-graduate study if you are a math or a computer science major; difficult to understand and few people have been exposed to it in detail).
That doesn't quite make sense, but I have a different question to ask you. What's your beef with the word "proof"? It's a perfectly good word. There's nothing wrong with it. There's no reason to avoid it like leprosy. It won't give you the pox. You don't have to ramble on with nonsensical rubbish like "proof has no place in science..." and the like, which is merely a concession to confused idiots anyway. Why not used a reasonable definition of the word proof? (like the one found in the dictionary, eg Webster's.) Surely, if I tell you that I have proven there is no sumo wrestler in my bedroom, you will understand me without going off into the weeds about mathematical proofs and deductive proofs, no?
I ain't ashamed.... // LAKE // In Jump NOW! // YOU! //
Just show me a rock that thinks and reproduces itself and I will believe the above. You folks are really going off the cliff.
It is all relative my boy, someday you will learn that dishonesty is in the ear of the receiver. Honesty is wasted on people like you
Well, that's another quality of evolutionists (besides dishonesty) to say and do no matter how foul or dishonest to promote your agenda. Thanks for showing the lack of character in those who support evolution.
Errrrmmm... This doesn't really follow, chemistry-wise. You might want to revise your math.
Of course it does. In case you had not heard the 'stop' codon can sometimes code for two other amino acids. The impossibility of evolution has been shown abundantly by modern science.
Of course they have. First of all selection is a destructive force. Selection kills, it does not create new organisms. Selection thins out the gene pool, it does not create new variations. So right there the whole basic argument of evolution is false. Yes there is variation in species, but that does not prove the source of it in any way. In fact the variations are so great between species that they cannot be accounted for by evolution. Organisms are very much integrated and chance mutations cannot account for such integration. Worst of all though, we do not see, have not seen any species in the process of transforming themselves into new more complex species. If evolution were true we would indeed be seeing many species in the process of transforming themselves into new ones at present, we do not see that anywhere. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence to back up the hypothesis of evolution.
Evidence for, not proof. That said, he was using the correct mathematical definition of "program".
Semantics and more nonsense. You are admitting that it takes a program to make something that works like an organism. Have you seen a program ever write itself? Programs are the product of intelligent design and that evolutionists have been forced to admit that organisms are programmed shows quite well that the theory of evolution has already been disproven.
You need to realize that evolutionists allways fall back on semantics when they are shown that their theory has no scientific evidence to back it up.
Please excuse my lack of character, it is an evolutionary thingy, Darwin isn't through with me yet! He-he, Ho-ho!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.