Video Games And Evolution.

[Seth 1]

Has anyone ever heard of MMORP games? It stands for Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing games. If you’ve never heard of them I’ll give a brief description of what it is.

 

MMORP’s are quite literally a world of their own, albeit a digital one. It’s an actual digital world, which includes, weather, fauna, oceans, rivers, mountains, forests, deserts, and critters like fish, birds and land animals. The law of gravity exists in this world, that is you can fall or even kill your online player, or you can drown in the water if you stay under too long. Animals, like wolves roam the land and will attack things like bunnies, chickens and yes even your game player if you get too close. You can gather herbs; hunt animals, fish, and mine. You have to eat or drink to revive your character etc.

 

The most popular of these types of games is called World of Warcraft. There are literally thousands of players playing online in this digital world. What I find fascinating about this game is the sheer size and complexity involved to make this all work.

 

This particular game took 2-3 years to develop with several programmers and designers spending hundreds of hours writing probably over a hundred thousand lines of code for it.

 

Does anyone think it possible that a programmer can write a seperate program that can write it’s own code and eventually develops a game like this, unguided and all by itself?

What’s the probability that a “self-replicating†code can do this? I say zero! It has no guide, no purpose, and no goal. It’s just writing code. How possible or probable is it that it can actually write “new†code? I say zero! To make a game like this requires a conscious thinking intelligent source to do that. As complex as this game is and the code written to make it, it pales in comparison to the DNA code found in the genome.

 

No evo would ever believe that a game like this could be written by a “self-replicating†code. They would think it absurd. And even if they did think it possible, a programmer had to have written that program as well. There’s just no escaping the need for an intelligent source to make a game like this. There is no escaping the simple logic that DNA requires no less; in fact it requires quite a bit more intelligence.

 

It’s quite astonishing to know of those who believe that the DNA code could have resulted from some “naturalistic†source. As absurd as it is to think that a game like World of Warcraft can be the result of a “self-replicating†program with no guidance or goal in mind to develop how much more absurd is it to think that this world and everything in it developed through natural means? The DNA code demands intelligence and in my opinion it should be an insult to our intelligence to think it doesn’t.

[Dave 25]

Hi Seth,

 

That's an interesting read. Thanks.

 

A brief Dogpile search revealed that there are folks out there who believe computer software can write itself.

 

For example, Chris Langton at http://www.panspermia.org/computrs.htm says this:

 

"What's the difference between the process of evolution in a computer and the process of evolution outside the computer? The entities that are being evolved are made of different stuff, but the process is identical.... These abstract computer processes make it possible to pose and answer questions about evolution that are not answerable if all one has to work with is the fossil record and fruit flies."

And then this:

 

"In September, 1995, Langton was asked: if chance can write the new genetic code behind evolutionary progress, then it should be able to write new computer code. Can it? Langton answered yes (7). His example was a string of computer code two bits long used to specify one strategy in a computer game simulating evolution (the "Prisoner's Dilemma"). Because mutations are allowed, the string of code can occasionally double to four bits; sometimes this doubling can lead to a superior strategy."

You can see where this is leading. A February 2005 Discover article at http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2005/ar...2005_Avida.html takes very, very seriously an artificial digital simulation of evolution called Avida.

 

One thing the digital organisms do particularly well is evolve.“ Avida is not a simulation of evolution; it is an instance of it,” Pennock says. “All the core parts of the Darwinian process are there. These things replicate, they mutate, they are competing with one another. The very process of natural selection is happening there. If that's central to the definition of life, then these things count.” --  My emphasis - Dave

That's really spooky stuff if these guys really believe it.

 

The problem with any computer simulation of evolution is that it labors under the same false presuppositions and "stacking the deck" that pure materialistic science does. Avida's developer didn't just go to sleep one night and wake up to find Avida self-created on his computer and humming along smoothly. No, it took many, many years of development -- design -- by intelligent humans to create software that would do what they wanted it to do. So, really, what does that tell us about evolution and creation? It's one of those "Duh!" things.

 

From the Discover article: "It may seem strange to talk about a chunk of computer code in the same way you talk about a cherry tree or a dolphin."

I'll say! It's downright scary. Materialistic-only scientists have not only removed God from the process, but they are getting real close to removing life from the process too. What's next?

 

That a computerized, digitial, artificial, created simulation of pretend evolution is touted as the real thing tells me that materialistic-only scientists are running out of ideas, they are running out of evidence. They are stepping way out into the Twighlight Zone.

 

Dave

[Patches 0]

Simulating nature isn't the same as creating nature. The world in the program is merely mimicking the basic and obvious aspects of this world, rather than building anything from scratch.

 

Just because you can fold a piece of paper and cut out a snowflake pattern does not liken it to the process which a real snowflake forms.

[Seth 1]

Simulating nature isn't the same as creating nature. The world in the program is merely mimicking the basic and obvious aspects of this world, rather than building anything from scratch.

 

Just because you can fold a piece of paper and cut out a snowflake pattern does not liken it to the process which a real snowflake forms.

Can paper snowflakes be formed naturaly without an intelligent source?

Can simulations of the real world be created without an intelligent source?

 

Then why would anyone think that "real" snow flakes and the "real" world would require less?

 

Yes, it's a simulation that was "created", that is to say there was an intelligent source that did the creating. We can't forget that small detail.

 

Intelligence was responsible for creating that simulation. That's the point. Why would anyone think less is required to create the real world? Yes, the best man can do is cut out paper snowflakes using his "mind" to do so. Why doesn't it require a mind or intelligence to create a process that makes crystals form from frozen water into these tiny sculptures called snow flakes?

 

If a mere simulation of this world requires an intelligent source to write and use the code to make it; then how is it even possible that the DNA code didn't require an intelligent source to both write and use it to create the real world?

[Patches 0]

If a mere simulation of this world requires an intelligent source to write and use the code to make it; then how is it even possible that the DNA code didn't require an intelligent source to both write and use it to create the real world?

7593[/snapback]

Because, in my experience, dropping a ball takes significantly less effort, thought, and resources than writing a computer program to simulate and display a ball dropping.

[MRC_Hans 0]

These comparisons between man-made artefacts (computer programs, watches, jumbojets, etc.) and the evolution suffers from one basic flaw: Computers, watches, etc. are not capable of self-replication. Life forms are.

 

Thus, artefacts cannot spontaneously evolve. You need to evolve them or, as in the case of certain computer programs, design them to self-evolve.

 

The computer programs that simulate evolving life-forms did not evolve spontaneously on the computer, because the computer was carefully designed NOT to produce its own programs; it wouldn't be very useful if your computer suddenly decided to write its own code.

 

Hans

[Dave 25]

These comparisons between man-made artefacts (computer programs, watches, jumbojets, etc.) and the evolution suffers from one basic flaw: Computers, watches, etc. are not  capable of self-replication. Life forms are.

7610[/snapback]

But, see, Mr. C. Hans? Creationists aren't touting these artificial constructs as representing evolution -- it's the evolutionists themselves who are. And as you pointed out, they don't come even close to representing what is really going on in the real world. You'd have to read the Discover article linked above to realize just how much evolutionists fall all over themselves in declaring that they have "created" evolution on the computer.

 

But, like evolutionist scientists do in their materialistic-only studies, these proponents of digital simulation turn a blind eye to the origins problem. However, my contention is that if you don't address the the origins problem, then you don't have any kind of foundation for building a whole theory of progression from there. From where? Nowhere. The foundation doesn't exist. So the theory is just so many "just so" stories.

 

Even though it would be really, really impressive if one of these guys did have a computer that booted itself up one day and created from whole cloth an Avida-like program, it would still beg the question: Didn't someone have to invent, design and build the computer?

 

Much as materialistic-only scientists feel they are doing more pure science than creation scientists, they are merely doing science with half their brains tied behind their backs, playing with half a deck, losing half their marbles. Until they recognize there is more to the world than only materialistic principles, they will never arrive at the solutions they so eagerly search for.

 

These digital simulations created to prove something that can't be proven in the real world are fun to play around with. But, it makes you wonder what exactly is going on in grown men's minds that they really believe these toys have anything to do with the real world. That was my question as I first read the article when it was published in Discover (which I read religiously every month, by the way).

 

Dave

[MRC_Hans 0]

But, see, Mr. C. Hans?

It's just MRC . It is an old flight simulator handle, and is not really relevant for anything, it's just that so many people in the internet know me by this name (just try to google it ), so I'm retaining it.

 

 

Creationists aren't touting these artificial constructs as representing evolution -- it's the evolutionists themselves who are.

You are right, for the programs that simulate evolution (actually once built one myself). What such programs prove is not that evolution happened, of course, but that a directional development based on random changes + selection is possible.

 

As for the other things (the watch and the jumbojet), yes, those are in fact arguments I have seen creationists make: They say, if you see a watch (jumbojet, etc), you know it did not come by randomly; somebody designed it. To be fait, this argument is probably more prominent among ID people.

 

And as you pointed out, they don't come even close to representing what is really going on in the real world. You'd have to read the Discover article linked above to realize just how much evolutionists fall all over themselves in declaring that they have "created" evolution on the computer.

Well, as I said above, "simulated" is a more appropriate term.

 

But, like evolutionist scientists do in their materialistic-only studies, these proponents of digital simulation turn a blind eye to the origins problem. However, my contention is that if you don't address the the origins problem, then you don't have any kind of foundation for building a whole theory of progression from there. From where? Nowhere. The foundation doesn't exist. So the theory is just so many "just so" stories.

Sorry, but that is not correct. Origin is really a different discussion. Personally I accept both abiogenesis and evolution, but they are not inevitable connected. Life could have been created, in a primitive form, and evolved from that.

 

As you must know, plenty of evolutionists are religious, and for them, the discussion of origin and evolution is not a question of whehter God created the universe, but of HOW. For an agnostic like myself, it goes back to the big bang: What started that? I simply don't know, but it could have been God.

 

Even though it would be really, really impressive if one of these guys did have a computer that booted itself up one day and created from whole cloth an Avida-like program, it would still beg the question: Didn't someone have to invent, design and build the computer?

Yes, of course. And someone created whoever designed the computer. And someone created whoever created the computer designer. And someone .... but, let's not go there.

 

Much as materialistic-only scientists feel they are doing more pure science than creation scientists,

IMHO, creation cannot be addressed scientifically. Science is, per definition, the art of discovering the material, cause and effect bound world. Creation and creator is the realm of religious philosophers, at least till such time as God decides to reveal himself directly to us.

 

 

Hans

[Dave 25]

It's just MRC  . It is an old flight simulator handle, and is not really relevant for anything, it's just that so many people in the internet know me by this name (just try to google it  ), so I'm retaining it.

Apologies. I'm partially dyslexic in my left eyeball, so I see things weirdly sometimes.

 

You are right, for the programs that simulate evolution (actually once built one myself). What such programs prove is not that evolution happened, of course, but that a directional development based on random changes + selection is possible.

I don't mean this in a prejorative sense, but my reaction to that is: "Who cares?" As many of the materialistic-only proponents on this board might say, "Show me the evidence." Programming a computer to give you want you want it to is not difficult. I'm pretty sure that one could program a computer to simulate just about any possibility the imagination could come up with. It has nothing to do with a real-life proof of evolution. But, in the Discover article, that is the impression the reader gets.

 

As for the other things (the watch and the jumbojet), yes, those are in fact arguments I have seen creationists make: They say, if you see a watch (jumbojet, etc), you know it did not come by randomly; somebody designed it. To be fait, this argument is probably more prominent among ID people.

That's a subtle argument. Of course everyone knows that someone had to make the watch or jumbo jet. I think what the IDers are trying to impress on folks is the odds of something vastly more complicated than a watch coming about by pure random, or natural-selection-directed chance. If you take this argument to the extreme you always ultimately come to having to deal with the point of origin.

 

Sorry, but that is not correct. Origin is really a different discussion.

No. Origin is everything. I can't think of anything else on earth that can be built without a foundation. You've got to have legs propping up your structure. It's not because you can't do legitimate scientific study in the earth sciences -- called operational science -- without having settled on origins. Because you can and should. It's because you can't postulate an unprovable theory based on no foundation, that presupposes and demands an origin that supports your theory. If you want to say, "If a, then b, then c, then d = f," you've got to know what a is to begin with.

 

 

As you must know, plenty of evolutionists are religious, and for them, the discussion of origin and evolution is not a question of whehter God created the universe, but of HOW.

First of all, there are plenty of "religious" people. Tom Cruise probably considers himself religious. So does Madonna. But they don't believe in the God of the Bible, or believe that the Bible is his Holy Word.

 

Theistic evolution is a whole 'nuther topic that's been covered elsewhere. It's a touchy subject because many of us have been there in our "baby Christian" days. It's very possible for someone to be saved but deceived about issues that are not salvation issues. We pray for them, and look forward to meeting them in Heaven where we'll enjoy the look on their faces when their eyes are finally opened to the truth and they see how wrong they were here on earth.

 

IMHO, creation cannot be addressed scientifically. Science is, per definition, the art of discovering the material, cause and effect bound world. Creation and creator is the realm of religious philosophers, at least till such time as God decides to reveal himself directly to us.

Neither creation scientists nor materialistic-only scientists will ever be able to scientifically prove what happened on Day One 6,000 years ago. The big difference between the two is how effectively and efficiently the two types of scientists can examine what evidence is available to us, and how much of operational science can be used to interpolate the past.

 

Materialistic-only scientists, with their limiting worldview, waste an enormous amount of time going down rabbit trails that lead nowhere. Do you know what a checksum is in computer programming? If you checksum a routine, and it doesn't add up, don't you stop, find the problem, and then continue? What if you say, "Heck, I *want* to keep going even if this routine is broken?" Will you *ever* have a working program? No. God gave us the Bible as the "checksum" for man's quest for knowledge. If the Bible says it aint so, it aint so. Period. No need to go farther. That's why creation scientists are doing much, much better science than materialistic-only scientists.

 

Dave

[Patches 0]

I'm pretty sure that one could program a computer to simulate just about any possibility the imagination could come up with. It has nothing to do with a real-life proof of evolution.

See, the problem is that people are looking at the computer as analogous to the real world. Unfortunately, the real world is decidedly disorganized and random, while the computer world is founded on logic and order.

 

For instance, if you went out into the world and found a rock shaped like a perfect cube, it would be strong evidence that an intelligent force created that rock, because its properties go against the usual randomness of the natural world. However, on a computer, you can create a cube with a single line of code. A world of cubes and lines on a computer is something basic and uncomplicated. It's when you start to see a program that exhibits randomness that you think there must have been a very intelligent programmer.

 

Therefore, the complexity of a program is directly proportional to how random and illogical it is (actually, computers are incapable of being truly random. "Random" functions are always seeded to a discrete equation, usually the clock). Given this, how something is done on a computer is of no consequence to how it's done in real life, because they operate under two separate base conditions.

 

Origin is everything.  I can't think of anything else on earth that can be built without a foundation. You've got to have legs propping up your structure. It's not because you can't do legitimate scientific study in the earth sciences -- called operational science -- without having settled on origins. Because you can and should. It's because you can't postulate an unprovable theory based on no foundation, that presupposes and demands an origin that supports your theory. If you want to say, "If a, then b, then c, then d = f," you've got to know what a is to begin with.

So, does that mean that we're unable to predict and understand the weather if we don't know where the atmosphere first came from? Are we unable to model and harness the sun's energy without knowing where it came from? Is your entire geneology meaningless if you don't know who the first person who carried your family name was?

 

First of all, there are plenty of "religious" people. Tom Cruise probably considers himself religious. So does Madonna. But they don't believe in the God of the Bible, or believe that the Bible is his Holy Word.

Last I checked, believing in your god is not a prerequisite for being considered "religious".

 

Materialistic-only scientists, with their limiting worldview, waste an enormous amount of time going down rabbit trails that lead nowhere. Do you know what a checksum is in computer programming? If you checksum a routine, and it doesn't add up, don't you stop, find the problem, and then continue? What if you say, "Heck, I *want* to keep going even if this routine is broken?" Will you *ever* have a working program? No. God gave us the Bible as the "checksum" for man's quest for knowledge. If the Bible says it aint so, it aint so. Period. No need to go farther. That's why creation scientists are doing much, much better science than materialistic-only scientists.

The problem with that is that one of the fundamental tenents of science is that nothing is infallible. If your checksum disagrees with observed reality often enough, a reasonable person would start to wonder if perhaps it is their checksum that is in error.

[Dave 25]

See, the problem is that people are looking at the computer as analogous to the real world.  Unfortunately, the real world is decidedly disorganized and random, while the computer world is founded on logic and order.

Exactly. That's the point I've been trying to make. *We* know it is ridiculous to place any importance on using a computer simulation to "prove" evolution. But, you need to read the Discover article to see just what a big deal they made out of it.

 

So, does that mean that we're unable to predict and understand the weather if we don't know where the atmosphere first came from?  Are we unable to model and harness the sun's energy without knowing where it came from?  Is your entire geneology meaningless if you don't know who the first person who carried your family name was?

Please re-read what I said. I said operational, observable science can and should be done. Mankind has benefitted immensely from scientific achievements. What I am saying is that postulating a whole theory of evolutionary development, based on ignoring origins or using a false presuppostion about origins, will be nothing more than a fairy tale. If your original presupposition is wrong, and all the interpretation of the evidence is based on that false presuppostion, then you are doing false science.

 

Last I checked, believing in your god is not a prerequisite for being considered "religious".

True. But it points out what I was trying to say, that saying someone is "religious" is meaningless if you are trying to make a point about what "religious" people believe or do in comparision with what Bible-believing Christians believe or do.

 

The problem with that is that one of the fundamental tenents of science is that nothing is infallible.  If your checksum disagrees with observed reality often enough, a reasonable person would start to wonder if perhaps it is their checksum that is in error.

I won't hold my breath waiting for scientists to admit that their presuppostions are in error. That just proves that materialistic-only science is so caught up in its worldview bias that even when "observed reality" challenges their presuppostions they still won't give up on their presuppositions.

 

Dave

[MRC_Hans 0]

I don't mean this in a prejorative sense, but my reaction to that is: "Who cares?" As many of the materialistic-only proponents on this board might say, "Show me the evidence." Programming a computer to give you want you want it to is not difficult. I'm pretty sure that one could program a computer to simulate just about any possibility the imagination could come up with. It has nothing to do with a real-life proof of evolution. But, in the Discover article, that is the impression the reader gets.

You can program a computer to provide whatever output you want, but a simulation is a simulation. In a bonafide simulation, you provide an input, and a set of rules. Then you sit back and watch.

 

The simulation of evolution does not prove that evolution happened, but that it is possible. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

That's a subtle argument. Of course everyone knows that someone had to make the watch or jumbo jet. I think what the IDers are trying to impress on folks is the odds of something vastly more complicated than a watch coming about by pure random, or natural-selection-directed chance.

That is axactly what they are trying do do, yes. And making the same fallacy, or strawman as you just did: "pure random, or natural selection directed", implying that those two are essentiallt the same, which they aren't.

 

Origin is everything. I can't think of anything else on earth that can be built without a foundation. You've got to have legs propping up your structure.

However, the foundation for evolution can be either abiogenesis or creation. Evolution stays the same. Evolution and origen are two different subjectes.

 

It's not because you can't do legitimate scientific study in the earth sciences -- called operational science -- without having settled on origins. Because you can and should. It's because you can't postulate an unprovable theory based on no foundation, that presupposes and demands an origin that supports your theory. If you want to say, "If a, then b, then c, then d = f," you've got to know what a is to begin with.

Sorry, but you're wrong. We can perfectly well start with the premise: Life exists.

 

.... Not that I mind discussing origins. It's just a different discussion.

 

First of all, there are plenty of "religious" people. Tom Cruise probably considers himself religious. So does Madonna. But they don't believe in the God of the Bible, or believe that the Bible is his Holy Word.

How about the pope?

 

quote]Theistic evolution is a whole 'nuther topic that's been covered elsewhere. It's a touchy subject because many of us have been there in our "baby Christian" days.

Not that this is a popularity contest, but you are talking about the majority of Christians, here.

 

 

It's very possible for someone to be saved but deceived about issues that are not salvation issues. We pray for them, and look forward to meeting them in Heaven where we'll enjoy the look on their faces when their eyes are finally opened to the truth and they see how wrong they were here on earth.

Well, I hope you won't be disappointed.

Neither creation scientists nor materialistic-only scientists will ever be able to scientifically prove what happened on Day One 6,000 years ago.

Or 4.5 billion years ago .

 

 

Do you know what a checksum is in computer programming? If you checksum a routine, and it doesn't add up, don't you stop, find the problem, and then continue?

Quite. I mentioned I'm a programmer.

 

God gave us the Bible as the "checksum" for man's quest for knowledge. If the Bible says it aint so, it aint so. Period. No need to go farther.

I'm sorry, but the bible as a checksum is a matter of belief. If you are right, then, yes, it should be our checksum. If you are wrong, however.....

 

That's why creation scientists are doing much, much better science than materialistic-only scientists.

Only, they don't actually seem to be doing better.

 

Hans

[Dave 25]

You can program a computer to provide whatever output you want, but a simulation is a simulation. In a bonafide simulation, you provide an input, and a set of rules. Then you sit back and watch.

Right. Which input, and whose set of rules? It's all subjective, and driven by a worldview.

 

The simulation of evolution does not prove that evolution happened, but that it is possible. Nothing more, nothing less.

That it is possible in a computer simulation has no bearing on reality. As you say below, "Life exists." Even the smallest one-cell organism is more complicated than anything man has been able to build to date. And the original presupposition makes all the difference in the outcome.

 

However, the foundation for evolution can be either abiogenesis or creation. Evolution stays the same. Evolution and origen are two different subjectes.

No. "Creation by God"makes the study of goo-to-you evolution null and void -- a waste of time -- because if you accept that the Creator is the God of the Bible then you must accept all the implications that go with that, which totally eliminates evolution. And that's the problem. Materialistic-only science just simply will not bend their will to the God of the Bible.

 

Alternately, yes, if your "creator" is little green men, germs from outer space, or a false god who "created" and then let "evolution" take over. In which case, you are starting with a false presumption and will get nowhere with it.

 

How about the pope?

I think it's safe to say that the Pope is a religious person. However, only God knows if any given Pope is a true born-again, Bible-believing Christian.

 

Not that this is a popularity contest, but you are talking about the majority of Christians, here.

Yep. Satan has no equal in his ability to deceive, and he's got plenty of helpers, and plenty of victims.

 

I'm sorry, but the bible as a checksum is a matter of belief. If you are right, then, yes, it should be our checksum. If you are wrong, however.....

Is what you are saying that the whole evolution/creation debate is one of worldviews? Belief? and Faith?

 

Only, they don't actually seem to be doing better.

Depends on who is keeping score. Right now, the materialistic-only scientists have cordoned off the scoreboard and are keeping competitors at bay with their AK47s, not allowing the opposing team to post their successes. Gee, home team 892, visitors 0. Funny about that.

 

Dave

[Patches 0]

Please re-read what I said. I said operational, observable science can and should be done. Mankind has benefitted immensely from scientific achievements. What I am saying is that postulating a whole theory of evolutionary development, based on ignoring origins or using a false presuppostion about origins, will be nothing more than a fairy tale. If your original presupposition is wrong, and all the interpretation of the evidence is based on that false presuppostion, then you are doing false science.

Not... really. How does where life came from have any bearing on the fact that we got dogs from wolves? Or any other example of domestication where humans harnessed the capability already naturally occuring in the life form's genes to breed it into something more useful to them? Whether life started by deep-sea chemicals or comets or little green men or supernatural beings, that does not change the fact that the cat sitting next to me is not a lion.

 

I won't hold my breath waiting for scientists to admit that their presuppostions are in error. That just proves that materialistic-only science is so caught up in its worldview bias that even when "observed reality" challenges their presuppostions they still won't give up on their presuppositions.

I won't hold my breath waiting for creationists to admit that their presuppostions are in error. That just proves that faith-only science is so caught up in its worldview bias that even when "observed reality" challenges their presuppostions they still won't give up on their presuppositions.

 

Fixed that for you. Seriously, what the heck is with creationists accusing their opponents of doing exactly the same thing they do? o_O Or are you saying that, unlike your supposed scientists, you admit that your presuppositions are in error and are not caught up in a biased worldview?

 

Besides, scientists concede to errors all the time. It used to be believed that the sun was a ball of burning coal because people at the time knew of no better source of heat and energy, until the discovery of atomic fusion. Newton's laws of physics used to be the end-all be-all until Einstein came out with his relatavistic physics. Science readily admits and glorifies its ability to change, because only a fool believes he is infallible.

[Patches 0]

No. "Creation by God"makes the study of goo-to-you evolution null and void -- a waste of time -- because if you accept that the Creator is the God of the Bible then you must accept all the implications that go with that, which totally eliminates evolution. And that's the problem. Materialistic-only science just simply will not bend their will to the God of the Bible.

 

Alternately, yes, if your "creator" is little green men, germs from outer space, or a false god who "created" and then let "evolution" take over. In which case, you are starting with a false presumption and will get nowhere with it.

How exactly is starting with "God did it" NOT a false presumption, but starting with anything else is?

 

Depends on who is keeping score. Right now, the materialistic-only scientists have cordoned off the scoreboard and are keeping competitors at bay with their AK47s, not allowing the opposing team to post their successes. Gee, home team 892, visitors 0. Funny about that.

If you wanna play the game, you gotta follow the rules. As soon as creationists can come up with something that is observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable, they can come play, too.

[Christopher_John 2]

Because, in my experience, dropping a ball takes significantly less effort, thought, and resources than writing a computer program to simulate and display a ball dropping.

7595[/snapback]

Realistically there are no programs that are "Self-Evoving". This is so easily true by the mere fact that even if the program was some form of A.I. it would still have to draw information from a library volume in order to procede with a cause and effect response to any given situation which would still be nothing more than base electronic voltage values, no one-person would know how to program a conscience for the software and even if they did, it would come back full circle, that it would have to draw a result from a library of information which was "Pre-Programmed". Human conciousness is the result of free will and vice verse. It's a vicious circle to which conciuosness of sin determines our actions to be righteous or not.

 

 

Much as materialistic-only scientists feel they are doing more pure science than creation scientists, they are merely doing science with half their brains tied behind their backs, playing with half a deck, losing half their marbles. Until they recognize there is more to the world than only materialistic principles, they will never arrive at the solutions they so eagerly search for.

Dave

7620[/snapback]

But it will help ease their conscience in order to substantiate the life-style to which the Bibles moral teachings attacks.

 

As you must know, plenty of evolutionists are religious, and for them, the discussion of origin and evolution is not a question of whehter God created the universe, but of HOW.

7635[/snapback]

I disagree completely, Evolution is the means to which a person defines the existence of mankind without devine influence and that is what evolution was designed for, to specifically contradict the Biblical account of creation...nothing more nothing less... complete polar oposites.

 

I don't mean this in a prejorative sense, but my reaction to that is: "Who cares?" As many of the materialistic-only proponents on this board might say, "Show me the evidence." Programming a computer to give you want you want it to is not difficult. I'm pretty sure that one could program a computer to simulate just about any possibility the imagination could come up with. It has nothing to do with a real-life proof of evolution. But, in the Discover article, that is the impression the reader gets.

Dave

7643[/snapback]

Exactly!, this is why mathematical formulas for Cosmic evolution and astro/quantum physics cannot be trusted to base a foundation, to support a presumptious theory! What goes wrong in all cases is that the design of the experiment is geared towards the result that they are looking for, as opposed to obtaining the basic result without the influenece of realistic physical forces of nature, too many unknowns are not accounted for, but the results are published as fact because there are far too few people using the same type of mathematics for different complex theories, no one has the time to spend months on end to challenge the theory(s) to disprove it, so it becomes "generally" accepted as factual...which gives rise to "Popular Opinion" or even more sadly "Popular Belief".

 

 

Theistic evolution is a whole 'nuther topic that's been covered elsewhere. It's a touchy subject because many of us have been there in our "baby Christian" days. It's very possible for someone to be saved but deceived about issues that are not salvation issues. We pray for them, and look forward to meeting them in Heaven where we'll enjoy the look on their faces when their eyes are finally opened to the truth and they see how wrong they were here on earth.

Dave

7643[/snapback]

Are you referring to death before sin?

 

 

Materialistic-only scientists, with their limiting worldview, waste an enormous amount of time going down rabbit trails that lead nowhere.

Dave

7643[/snapback]

This is "Par for the Course", keep in mind when debating Creation vs Evolution, evolutionist believe that the study of evolution came before science and that Evolution is Science and not just a branch of study that one can use "Science" to investigate...it's the land of "Denialists" as I like to call them. A person who studies and works as an evolutionary scientist in a carreer setting truly believes that what he/she is doing, is the cornerstone of the pyramid of science and that all other branches of science fall under evolution...complete denial.

 

What has to be maintained quite clearly is, evolution requires a tremendous amount of time for the process to produce a life form which is contradictory to the Biblical account of first Sin.

 

Death is a curse brought on by sin and evolution would pre-date sin by billions upon billions of years....in evolution death came before sin, therefore belief of evolution and death before Adam& Eve's sin is the same as denying Christ because the last enemy that Christ will defeat is Death and Death is a curse brought to mankind by sin...How could evolution even THeistically be believed to pre-date sin unless man has to make up a whole bunch of theories which are non-scriptural to support their theory...unless they are trying to combat the theory of Evolution...again... a polar opposite.

 

Evolution theory completely places the entire Biblical account of man's co-existence with God in error because of its time line, belief in evolution scripturally cannot be accepted...it is not an opinion it is a scriptural fact...if you believe there was death before sin then you do not believe in the word of God and are following a path of deceit in order to justify your belief of Evolution and not the word of God.

 

You can program a computer to provide whatever output you want, but a simulation is a simulation. In a bonafide simulation, you provide an input, and a set of rules. Then you sit back and watch.

Hans

7646[/snapback]

Wrong, even a simulation must draw from a dynamic pre-programmed library of information in order to produce a data output. If elements are missing which we know quite factually where evolution is concerned the output will be an eroneous value.

 

Quite. I mentioned I'm a programmer.

7643[/snapback]

I have my doubts.

 

Just my hunch...I could be wrong.

 

Peace

CJ

[Patches 0]

Evolution is the means to which a person defines the existence of mankind without devine influence and that is what evolution was designed for, to specifically contradict the Biblical account of creation...nothing more nothing less... complete polar oposites.

It's sad to hear that you believe that, but it helps me understand why religious people hate evolution so much. Fortunately for you, you're wrong. You don't have to be worried about scientists like us. Really, we're not out to get you. We don't gleefully sit in our labs every day concocting evil schemes to usurp your religious beliefs. We just observe the world and occasionally find things, quite by accident, that happen to contradict what your book says.

 

For example, the Germ Theory of Disease contradicts the Bible by saying that disease is caused by infectious agents such as bacteria and viruses rather than curses or demons. We didn't just "make up" the existence of these agents so that we could disprove the Bible, we simply discovered them.

 

Please, we are not your enemies. Saying that evolution was designed specifically to contradict the Bible is like saying that people apply for jobs specifically to prevent someone else from getting the position. Yes, sometimes it results in a conflict of interest, but there really was no malicious intent.

[Christopher_John 2]

It's sad to hear that you believe that, but it helps me understand why religious people hate evolution so much.  Fortunately for you, you're wrong.  You don't have to be worried about scientists like us.  Really, we're not out to get you.  We don't gleefully sit in our labs every day concocting evil schemes to usurp your religious beliefs.  We just observe the world and occasionally find things, quite by accident, that happen to contradict what your book says.

 

For example, the Germ Theory of Disease contradicts the Bible by saying that disease is caused by infectious agents such as bacteria and viruses rather than curses or demons.  We didn't just "make up" the existence of these agents so that we could disprove the Bible, we simply discovered them.

 

Please, we are not your enemies.  Saying that evolution was designed specifically to contradict the Bible is like saying that people apply for jobs specifically to prevent someone else from getting the position.  Yes, sometimes it results in a conflict of interest, but there really was no malicious intent.

7656[/snapback]

Disease is in most cases is part of the cycle leading to death...unfortunately in your case, many hundreds of years have passed since the forerunners of evolution helped form your belief in the evidence of the theory...in any case It's not about wrong or right, I am specifically pointing out the teachings of the Bible...The Bible teaches that death came from mankinds sin and Evolution teaches that death came before sin, do you have evidence that the Bible says otherwise?...It's not a vision of conspiracy its just a fact...between the two.

 

If you want to get bothered by the fact that the Bible places Sin before Death you can jump up and down all you like...the fact is Evolution says death came first which pre-dates Creation...so theistically, scripturally, they are polar opposites...their is no right or wrong on the issue...it's a fact.

 

Peace

CJ

[Patches 0]

many hundreds of years have passed since the forerunners of evolution helped form your belief in the evidence of the theory...

 

Actually, I came to the same conclusion as the theory of evolution on my own research, and only found out later that it had a name, proponents, and much more evidence than what it took for me to come to the conclusion.

 

I mean, that's one of science's greatest strengths. If someone makes a discovery, someone else should also be able to independently discover it without the two people having ever heard of each other's discoveries.

 

Science is never about just going by what other people say. You take what other people have done as your starting point, and you make your own observations to decide if the conclusion that they came to was a valid one.

 

This article marks the most obvious discrepancy between evolution and creation: Potential Falsification. Every single conclusion is followed by a statement basically saying, "evolution would be proven wrong if we found this". So, if you want to argue against evolution, they're gladly laying out everything you need to be looking for to prove them wrong.

[Dave 25]

How does where life came from have any bearing on the fact that we got dogs from wolves? Or any other example of domestication where humans harnessed the capability already naturally occuring in the life form's genes to breed it into something more useful to them? Whether life started by deep-sea chemicals or comets or little green men or supernatural beings, that does not change the fact that the cat sitting next to me is not a lion. -- Patches

Dogs from wolves is a perfect example of speciation, adaptation and change using DNA information that was in the "dog" family from the beginning of creation. The "bearing" is that materialistic-only scientists have to create a whole fairytale of unprovable "just so" stories to invent a lineage from who-knows-what, maybe a little tiny shrew, to arrive at wolves and then dogs. The observable evidence clearly and indisputably points to the fact that dogs and wolves (dog kind) have always been only just that, dogs. Huge waste of time and good scientific resources going down that rabbit trail!

 

That creation-believing scientists don't waste their time and resources following false assumptions means that they are doing better science.

 

How exactly is starting with "God did it" NOT a false presumption, but starting with anything else is? -- Patches

That's a gimme. Because "God did it" is the right assumption to make because God said so. Any denial of that is a worldview problem, not a scientific one.

 

If you wanna play the game, you gotta follow the rules. As soon as creationists can come up with something that is observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable, they can come play, too. -- Patches

It would be nice if materialistic-only evolutionists would do what you suggest. In fact, imagine the scientific discoveries that could be made to the benefit of mankind if all the time and talent and resources being used by worldview-driven, materialisitic only scientists were not being wasted going down these scientific dead ends. I'm afraid you won't get very many takers in your challenge to "play the game" according to "materialistic-only rules" among scientists who know better.

 

Dave

[Christopher_John 2]

Actually, I came to the same conclusion as the theory of evolution on my own research, and only found out later that it had a name, proponents, and much more evidence than what it took for me to come to the conclusion.

 

I mean, that's one of science's greatest strengths.  If someone makes a discovery, someone else should also be able to independently discover it without the two people having ever heard of each other's discoveries.

 

Science is never about just going by what other people say.  You take what other people have done as your starting point, and you make your own observations to decide if the conclusion that they came to was a valid one.

 

This article marks the most obvious discrepancy between evolution and creation: Potential Falsification.  Every single conclusion is followed by a statement basically saying, "evolution would be proven wrong if we found this".  So, if you want to argue against evolution, they're gladly laying out everything you need to be looking for to prove them wrong.

7661[/snapback]

 

I agree somewhat but also do understand that science is a tool to which one uses to study evidence and not the other way around to which the majoity within the evolution community becomes defensive or become inflammatory when evolution is challenged by Science.

 

A prime example of the value of History plays a key role. I wasn't around when Benito Musolini was dictator of Italy....Hitler of Germany, Stalin of Russia but yet I have historical reference from books for proof of their existence...I have to trust that the History records are accurate but if I choose to dismiss that they ever existed some elderly person will assure me that they saw these people...the same cannot be said for evolution...you have to trust in theories that man evolved through a variety of processes.

 

Many obvious facts remain for major holes in mankinds evolution, where are the pre-hominid fossils?....it is easy for the Evolutionary community to say that we evolved from Australopithecus afarensis but where are the intermediary species for evidence prior to these species?, the evolutionary evidence makes huge leaps and bounds over this fact and tries to look at genetics and DNA to support a hypothesis for human evolution which requires an absurd amount of speculation and conjecture in order to establish the steps for human evolution by means of natural selection.

 

So again in order to come to the conclusion or acceptance for evolution one must extrapolate a "belief system" in order to get the end result of homo-sapien.

 

There are no witnesses only fossils, fossils which raise bigger questions...why did they fossilize?...why did they not decay and or decompose like typical carbon based matter? Fossilization requires specific conditions for that process to take place...why do we not fossilize today?...we rot and decompose even forest vegetation decomposes into compost...where is the future fossil evidence coming from to help the next wave of continually evolving humans to get their information from for our existence if we are all decomposing after death?

 

If mankind has been around for 3-6 million years why do we only have evidence of man made structures that are maximum 5000 years old?....do you really believe they were too dumb to get out of the caves?

 

50 years ago Arabs were riding camels...now they drive Rolls Royce's, Mercedes, BMW's, have cell phones, PC's and air craft....does the idea of a 3-6 million human evolution still seem a reality? but yet you can teach a chimpanzee to do amazing things in just a matter of weeks but mankind was too stupid to come out of a hole in the ground for millions of years?...I'll pass on the evolution theory thank you very much, the holes are just too big.

 

Human population growth charts demonstrate that there were less than 200 million people on earth 2000 years ago...from 1967 to 2000 we've managed to double the population from 3-6 billion people on earth in 33 years...the true facts of today's reality do not match or coincide with evolution theory at all....nadda.

 

The average increase in human longevity due to better lifestyle and living today compared to yesteryear doesn't account for the population growth curve, it wouldn't even make a dent in the population growth curve even if the average age life expectancy was only 55 years.

 

The evolutionary community can dream up a fantasy of the pre-biotic soup but yet they cannot or refuse to scientifically research how people were able to live to be 6-7-8 and 900 years old as stated in the Bible but were expected to believe that we all came from Campbell's Chunky Soup? ...please no offense, but Evolution Theory is comic relief for the scientific community.

 

Peace

CJ

[Seth 1]

The whole point I was attempting to make in this post was simply that the simulations of the "real world" were designed and programmed by intelligent minds. (And yes, obviously they were "just" simulations of the real world.) Therefore something vastly more complex like hmm..."life" cannot have been the result of "natural" means. Specifically the DNA code. The DNA code makes evolution a ridiculous possibility. The DNA code requires an intelligent source to have developed it. Evo's would never believe or accept that a mere "simulation" of the real world can come about "without" an intelligent source so I can't help wonder why they would think that the code behind the "Real" world (DNA) did?

 

If you can't accept that a mere game simulating the real world could not have been the result of a mindless purposeless process what in the world would make anyone think that the DNA code was? It simply makes no sense whatsoever to think that. The complex nature of this code is beyond anything that the mind of man has ever devised and yet somehow evo's believe it came about "naturally". And that's all it is, is a belief.

 

Here's a website that's been up since 1997, I believe, http://www.lifeorigin.org/. It's making a genuine effort to find the origin of life. In fact the whole site is quite interesting. This line I feel is very telling:

 

6. The source of genetic information in nature

 

No theory of genetic information is complete without a model of mechanism for the source of such prescriptive information within Nature. It is not sufficient for a submission to the Prize to limit discussion of prescriptive information (instruction) theory to its replication, transmission, modification, or matrix of information retention. All submissions must address the source of the prescriptive information through non-supernaturalistic natural processes. Which of the four known forces of physics, or what combination of these forces, produced prescriptive, functional information, and how? What is the empirical evidence for this kind of prescriptive information (instruction) spontaneously arising within Nature? [italics in the original] 7

 

Notice that "all submissions must address the source of the prescriptive information through non-supernaturalistic natural processes." Because as of yet, none have been discovered and none ever will. But evo's only "believe" that it will eventually. There is no evidence that it came about naturaly. The continuing discoveries of the DNA code make that possibility even more unlikely.

 

If evo's think that the DNA code was developed "naturally" then it's merely a belief, a faith. Because as of yet no "non-supernaturalistic natural processes" have been discovered.

[Patches 0]

That's a gimme. Because "God did it" is the right assumption to make because God said so. Any denial of that is a worldview problem, not a scientific one.

... Sorry, you made me spit out my drink on that one. *wipes mouth*

 

Ahem, anyway, that's circular reasoning to its fullest extent. You're going to have to come up with something better than "because God said so" to give your initial assumption preferential treatment over anyone else's. In the scientific world, nothing is absolutely true. Invoking God in science is like walling up in a little corner and saying "Nyah nyah, can't get me!"

 

It would be nice if materialistic-only evolutionists would do what you suggest. In fact, imagine the scientific discoveries that could be made to the benefit of mankind if all the time and talent and resources being used by worldview-driven, materialisitic only scientists were not being wasted going down these scientific dead ends. I'm afraid you won't get very many takers in your challenge to "play the game" according to "materialistic-only rules" among scientists who know better.

Okay. Name me an accepted scientific theory that is not testable, reproduceable, observable, or falsifiable. And to counter it, tell me how creation does fall into those criteria.

[Patches 0]

I agree somewhat but also do understand that science is a tool to which one uses to study evidence and not the other way around to which the majoity within the evolution community becomes defensive or become inflammatory when evolution is challenged by Science.

Except it's not being challenged by science, it's being challenged by religion. There is no real dispute that evolution happens, the only dispute in science is how.

 

A prime example of the value of History plays a key role.  I wasn't around when Benito Musolini was dictator of Italy....Hitler of Germany, Stalin of Russia but yet I have historical reference from books for proof of their existence...I have to trust that the History records are accurate but if I choose to dismiss that they ever existed some elderly person will assure me that they saw these people...the same cannot be said for evolution...you have to trust in theories that man evolved through a variety of processes.

You do realize that no one is around anymore to vouch for the accuracy of the Bible, either, right? If I find a stump, I can reasonably assume that there was once a tree there, despite there being no human record or testimony of the existence of that tree before now.

 

If mankind has been around for 3-6 million years why do we only have evidence of man made structures that are maximum 5000 years old?....do you really believe they were too dumb to get out of the caves?

 

50 years ago Arabs were riding camels...now they drive Rolls Royce's, Mercedes, BMW's, have cell phones, PC's and air craft....does the idea of a 3-6 million human evolution still seem a reality? but yet you can teach a chimpanzee to do amazing things in just a matter of weeks but mankind was too stupid to come out of a hole in the ground for millions of years?...I'll pass on the evolution theory thank you very much, the holes are just too big.

You've just contradicted yourself. Arabs were riding camels 50 years ago and 5,000 years ago as well. If humans are too stupid to figure out a Rolls Royce in 5,000 years, why is is such a stretch to believe they couldn't figure it out in 2 million years? Sometimes the discovery of a single thing can snowball into many other things in a short time, but you've gotta make that initial discovery first.

 

Human population growth charts demonstrate that there were less than 200 million people on earth 2000 years ago...from 1967 to 2000 we've managed to double the population from 3-6 billion people on earth in 33 years...the true facts of today's reality do not match or coincide with evolution theory at all....nadda.

You do realize that population growth is not linear, right?

 

Here's a simulation of human population growth following the flood up until the fall of Babel, which created the spread of civilizations all over the world such as the Egyptians, Chinese, and Aztecs. If you think my population claim is unreasonable, check out how yours works out, too.

 

The average increase in human longevity due to better lifestyle and living today compared to yesteryear doesn't account for the population growth curve, it wouldn't even make a dent in the population growth curve even if the average age life expectancy was only 55 years.

But it still doesn't account for the fact that there are other ancient civilizations out there with their own records, meaning that a significant number of people had to exist shortly after the flood. How did Noah's family produce the different races? How did their descendants get all the way to the Americas in such a short time? Since Native Americans were not seafaring, and since everyone had to have started out in the Middle East, how did they get over there?

[Dave 25]

...  Sorry, you made me spit out my drink on that one.  *wipes mouth*

We are having fun, aren't we.

 

Name me an accepted scientific theory that is not testable, reproduceable, observable, or falsifiable.

That's easy: Evolution.

 

And to counter it, tell me how creation does fall into those criteria.

Obviously, it doesn't either. So ... who ya gonna believe? What you believe is determined by your worldview and what you are personally willing to put your faith in. That's an important decision to make -- one that has implications far beyond what you believe about bones in the ground.

 

Dave