Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: tortoise
You are arguing that intelligent design of a program proves random chance. Can't you see the absurdity of what you are saying?-me-

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.

154 posted on 02/11/2003 4:48:10 AM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]


To: gore3000; tortoise; js1138
I’m sure both sides of the evolution debate tire from having to argue the same points de novo each time a new thread is posted. The discussion you are having with tortoise and js1138 is a case in point.

On this very long thread we exhausted thousands of posts exploring information theory and molecular biology. The emphasis was autonomy and self-organizing complexity. Somewhere along the way I offered the hypothesis that algorithm at inception is proof of intelligence design and provided several methods of falsification. The debate on that thread is particularly informative because of contributions of many Freeper experts and thinkers. There is a lot of useful information to be “had” – but it cannot be realistically copied into this thread.

I don’t wish to argue the case again here, but I do suggest anyone interested in the particulars of the debate might want to click on the above link.

163 posted on 02/11/2003 7:58:45 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson