Posted on 02/08/2003 7:54:52 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Seems to me that the above is a total nonsequitur to what you responded to which was:
Yup, I am sure you will not. There is nothing to bash, no Christianity to insult and since it is true, there is nothing to refute. Better let the thread die eh? Like the leftist media, when you cannot bash the opposition you just try to make sure it does not get a hearing.
Now I understand why you and your fellow evolutionists are getting pretty desperate and you have to try to change the subject all the time. Nevertheless, I will address your point.
It is quite ridiculous of you (and other evolutionists) to claim that genetic programming does not need to be intelligent when you yourself admit in your statement that we, intelligent human beings, with all our scientific knowledge and millions of brains looking at the problems involved cannot figure them out even now. You are going to tell us that dumb luck is wiser than all these scientists trying to solve the problem?????
You guys have to be getting pretty desperate when you have to throw away the last piece of your silly theory - random change - in order to try to save it.
The above sounds like an insult to me! However, if I was wrong in my statements, why did you not show where I am wrong as I did with your post? Maybe because my statements were correct??????? Maybe because as I argued in post# 37 Stove's article is dead on correct???????
Because there's no point. You'll never admit you are wrong, regardless of how firmly you are nailed to the wall - I might as well attempt to persuade rocks of this, for all the success I am likely to have with you. I am confident that anyone with even a moderate grasp of the English language can compare your posts to the article and quickly come to see that you have fundamentally misunderstood every point you try to "refute".
A couple of good patents in the restricted domain of electronic circuitry, and I suspect the engineering problems will be considered worthy of attention. There are zillions of design problems where the materials and desired outcomes are constrained.
The abstract I posted does not mention that the circuit designed by genetic programming is not fully understood, even though it works. I would assume that this meets a primary goal of artificial intelligence, the production of useful and novel designs that exceed the abilities of the program creator.
This paragraph simply doesn't make any sense. How is it a response to the article I posted?
As a point of reference, you have been razzing a "Hamlet" program because -- you claim -- it doesn't even run. Now there is a program that has designed a patentable electronic circuit by random mutation and selection. The circuit exceeds the ability to the programmer to understand it. In other words, the programmer could not possibly have designed the circuit, and yet it emerged from randomness.
Because there's no point.
Well, I do not see you folk ever admitting you are wrong. In fact, when you are shown to be wrong evolutionists just call in their friends to lie for them and say that they are correct. The truth has value and people recognize it, that is why even though I may not convince the evolutionist, I still take the trouble to show where their statements are wrong. You and your friends just insult and make excuses when you get caught with your pants down and are shown that your theory is absolute nonsense.
Facts beat rhetoric - every time and your insults just give further legitimacy to the truth of my statements.
While you are at it, why don't you look up the definition of science, and maybe the scientific method or better yet do more research here on freerep to educate yourself.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. If you argued this, you would be guilt of "ad hominem". A fallacy. So no, you can't credibly say that.
There are many, many, cases in history where people credited with brilliant ideas were raving nutters of one sort or another and said or did stupid or absurd things. Isaac Netwon wasn't entirely right in the head and wrote a lot of books and treatises that were nonsensical gibberish, yet it turns out that some of his tangential meanderings in math and physics were brilliant. Albert Einstein became a crank when he got older and asserted many things of dubious credibility that he should be embarrassed about. Noam Chomsky and Roger Penrose are two modern individuals who are arguably very smart in their narrow fields of specialty yet utter fools the second their brains wander outside these very narrow fields. This is a very common pattern among brilliant folk. Not universal, but very common to the point of being cliche. The hard part about dealing with brilliant people is filtering the brilliance from the raving nonsense, both of which are often spewed forth in abundance. History does a very good job of this, even if their contemporaries do not.
Teehee, glad I could help~
But of course -- people do tend to like things that reinforce their prejudices.
Next up, Tom Daschle and his devastating essay, "So You Think You Are a Conservative?"
Nonsense. "Darwinists" will be persuaded by facts, evidence, theories which fit the known data, and reasoned arguments. But twaddle like the straw-man essay which starts this thread don't fit any of those categories.
I see this is your first encounter with Gore3000.
You see, he doesn't need to actually *learn* any of the fields he tries to rebut -- he feels no need to, not even when he's making up stuff that he falsely claims scientists have written.
For just one example, we're *still* trying to get him to provide any Darwin quote which supports Gore3000's allegations of the existence of a "Darwin's racist claim that the brachyocephalic index showed what races were superior and which were inferior."
After much insistence that he support or retract this slur, the best (*cough*) he could come up with was to claim "That Darwin said it can be easily found by doing a search on the Origins." Well no, actually, it can't. Nor can Gore3000 manage to provide the alleged passage, despite the fact that he said it could be "easily found".
That's just one of many the Gore3000 FABNAQ's (Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions) which Freeper Dan Day has compiled.
In short, he's making it up as he goes along and hoping nobody calls him on it.
This paragraph simply doesn't make any sense. How is it a response to the article I posted?
First of all, my post to you was a response to your post that said:
You have only a few years left to ignore such things as genetic programming. Just for the record, it answers the question of where the "information" comes from. It does not need to come from precognition of cause and effect. mutation and selection are sufficient.
Second of all, your article ASSUMES that those patented discoveries were the result of evolution. There is no reason for such an assumption. The fact that scientists, even with our tremendous knowledge and the brains of millions of people working on these problems are constantly looking at how organisms solve some of these problems shows quite well that these organisms were intelligently designed by someone much more capable than us human beings.
As a point of reference, you have been razzing a "Hamlet" program because -- you claim -- it doesn't even run.
Wrong. The problem with Dawkins's program is not that it does not run. The problem is that it does not model the way evolution supposedly works. For it to work as evolution supposedly does it would have to be able to write an original Shakesperean play.
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.