Rem, as I said before, I do not want to get into a debate about this subject, however, I will respond just this once to the quoted extract concerning programming. This is the very last post I will be making in this thread.
Of course, without actually knowing the precise methods used in constructing original code and testing methods, it is difficult to be able to examine the claims in specific detail. However, here are my observations.
The first point to be made is that you cannot get away from the fact that program code produced via intelligent means (i.e. human mind) has to be produced first as a vehicle for kickstarting the software 'evolution' process. Secondly, random events can only be simulated via a software/hardware random number generator, which in itself is created via intelligent design. Each random number has to be converted into a form of data that is meaningful to the process, which again requires an intelligence-driven source that for interpretation. Thirdly, any new code evolved, has to be tested for legitimate retention, which again requires human intervention, whether that be internally as part of the original program as it runs, or whether that be externally by stopping the running program and making a choice.
The four essential processes of starting, interpreting data, testing, and adding/subtracting new code are all intelligence-based. There is a well-known rule in computing, "garbage in, garbage out", and the only way to prevent garbage entering the system and vomitting itself out as some later point is by making intelligent choices.
As you have probably guessed, computer simulations and evolving code, in my view are not legitimate candidates for testing the credibility of randomly generated life, because they are all products of intelligent design. I say this as one who has been involved in both low-level and high-level computer programming - its what I trained for at university.
Natural Selection = selection by natural means. The very word "selection" explicitly points to something that has been chosen, which of necessity requires the presence of something able to make a judgement. I believe that something able to make a judgement must have a degree of intelligence behind it. Of course there are other influences that produce specific effects (e.g. mutation), but Natural Selection still functions as the overarching "organiser" in the evolution model.
I really must move on to other things now.
Kind regards,
Alex.
Shemittah
JoinedPosts by Shemittah
-
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
Shemittah
-
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
Shemittah
Hi there SixOfNine!
Well, in order to simulate evolution, the evolutionists have employed intelligent design, via the human mind which has created structured logic in the form of a computer program. This intelligent design will enable a theory to be acted out according the parameters of the code.
Kind regards,
Alex. -
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
Shemittah
Rem, thanks for the reply. I think the very fact that evolutionists are using computer programs to simulate evolution speaks for itself. Anyway, I said I don't want to get into debates about this, I been this route loads of times, and it just gets tiresome. I've said what I wanted to say, directed really to the creator of this thread in answer to her question on a personal note. Don't get me wrong, I actually respect the guts of people like Darwin who was convinced of his beliefs and fought against seeming overwhelming odds. It seems we've come full circle.
Kind regards,
Alex. -
8
Challenge To Evolutionists And Creationists
by Shemittah inchallenge to evolutionists and creationists
i think its true to say that many evolutionists and creationists read books and other writings authored by people who hold to their particular view.
i'd like to to issue a challenge to individuals from both camps to read at least one book (cover to cover) written by someone writing for the other side (if you haven't already).. .
-
-
Shemittah
Thanks Rem for your comments. I certainly would not want to add to your reading tasks! I'll have to get back to you on the book though. Don't let the fact that he's a lawyer prevent you from considering his book as worthy of a future read though - I think I'd listen to a detective presenting evidence for fraud against a scientist! As for the mistakes, etc, let him speak for himself, so you can take his words in context. His second edition tackles some of challenges made against his book by evolutionists.
Kind regards,
Alex. -
172
Evolution or Creation??
by dottie inwell i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.
myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.
so i do find it confusing sometimes .
-
-
Shemittah
Dottie, I don't intend to get into a debate about this subject, just simply give an answer to your original question from my own perspective. I am still convinced that the various lifeforms we see today and those of the past was pre-programmed by an intelligent designer, whether you class that as being 'God' or some person(s) not indigenous to planet earth.
I spent some years as a computer programmer and know how easy it is to introduce a 'bug' into a program that throws the whole thing off balance, so you can imagine how I view non-intelligence-based evolution as a means for producing the diversity of life. One thing a programmer knows is that the larger the program, the greater risk of bugs, which will give rise to at best a little performance deficit and at worst a huge computer crash. Evolution relies on a self-writing program based on random changes (or not so random changes, if you consider the purpose of Natural Selection) and additions to the code as it runs through time. Since evolution is not intelligence-driven yet it is said to have been responsible for the material world we see around us, I find it extremely difficult to believe . As a result, belief in evolution is as much a matter of faith to me as is a belief in God; it also leads to the unfathomable question, 'How was something produced from nothing?' To me it doesn't matter whether you believe in evolution or creation you still have to enter the realm of conjecture.
Micro-evolution is observable and therefore tests can be made regarding it. Large-scale changes such as a proto-ape-human changing into ape/man cannot be observed, and therefore cannot be tested, which means it cannot be verified by scientific means. Although m utations do happen in the observable world , t he value of such mutations to survival is debatable. These mutations have, not to my knowledge, produced new organs which give them some kind of advantage in the natural world. Scientists have been able to change the genetic code in some forms of life, but then this introduces an external intelligence into the equation , something that would not occur in a randomly generated universe. Natural selection is supposed to endow an organism with characteristics which will give it a fighting chance to overcome threats to its existence. If the threat is in the present then we must reasonably assume that any changes must take place in the present since the threat is immediate. If the threat lies in the future then that would mean that Natural selection must possess either foreknowledge or intelligence that gives it a good chance to predict the future. In the first case, if the threat were a major flood, then flightless land animals would have to develop body changes that would equip them for aquarian life right there and then , and unless new body changes complimented rather than replaced existing features, there could be a danger of being wiped out before the flood came (e.g. gills replacing lungs)! In the second case, where is the intelligence that predicts the future? Where does intelligence fit into the e volution ary scheme of things? Even if a lifeform had the ability to sense danger present or future, could it facilitate change by simply thinking about it? Taking the university route in order to understand the origins of life, means that the student has to play by the rules set by evolutionists. One thing worth considering is that if there is "overwhelming evidence" (such expressions are often thrown into texts to lend authority) for evolution, then why would anyone need a degree to see it. From my perspective it would be a waste of time and I would find it unbearable to be in an environment where independant thinking was not an option. There may well be places that give students scope to challenge the theory of evolution without ridicule, I don't know. I do know that evolutionists have a stranglehold on public education (including TV and other media outlets) as well as scientific journals.
Such a formidible presence and strength almost guarantees that only the evolutionists will be heard while the voices of those who believe in life via intelligent design are drowned out - when was the last time you saw a TV program dealing with the origins of life from a creation-by-design point of view? You cannot escape having the "gospel" preached to you by the evolutionists. Try to find a book on biology or an animal encyclopaedia that doesn't advertise for them in some way. The evolutionists hold all or most of the key positions that matter, and have enormous control over what constitutes evidence and in what manner this is presented to the public (sort of reminds me of George Orwell's 1984). In that situation you have to be true to yourself, go with your instincts and listen to those few who have had access to some of this "evidence" and beg to differ ("Buried Alive" by Jack Cuozzo is a good example of such a situation). Thankfully, the Internet has helped to provide some resistence to the constant barrage from the "Masters of the Universe", with some courageous people willing to stick their necks out in an effort to make sure people hear an alternative view of their origins. My belief was and still remains that the cosmos is intelligence-driven. I know that this is not the popular belief but then I never was worried about being different. Its very important to me that people can make their own informed opinion on this subject , rather than just following the herd who tend to take the evolutionists words as sacred writ. Many of these evolutionist have, after all, walked down the holy halls of academe and been blessed with the white coat and title that befits their role as priests serving in the interests of the sacred cow of science. :0)
There are some beliefs that are harmless in themselves and it doesn't matter in the end who is right. However, the theory of evolution can teach people to view themselves as simply sophisticated animals with no need of a spiritual dimension to their lives. The danger of course is that such a view of life can make it easier to justify selfi shness , to the detriment of humankind - for instance, why fight promiscuity if its a natural part of our makeup as indicated by our closest "relatives" the chimpanzees? If we promote views that hold particular popular world support, but they have the capacity to turn people into "animals", then I believe we must be prepared to share responsibility for any resultant brutish behaviour. Kind regards,
Alex. -
44
Need a little help on 607 586/587....
by undercover ini remember reading somewhere a quote from a wts publication that more or less said that the bible was wrong when it came to one of the regnal years or how many years a certain king had ruled.
something like that anyway(i've got to start copying and pasting or bookmarking or something).
somehow if you take the society at it's word about 607 it creates a problem with the rulership length or starting rulership date of somebody and in one of their publications it actually says something about that time period having to be incorrect.
-
-
Shemittah
I read COJ's book some time ago, and in fact found his reasoning was the best I have heard put forward that would both support the Bible's reference to "seventy years" while at the same time being compatible with the 539 date. Here are some observations based on that book's treatment of the subject.
Jeremiah 25:11
"VEHAYETHAH {and-she-will-become} KAL- {whole-of} HA'ARETS {the-land} HAZZO'TH {the-this} LECHAREKAH {as-wasteland} LESHAMMAH {as-desolation} VE'AVEDU {and-they-will-serve} HAGOYIM {the-nations} HA'ELLEH {the-these} 'ETH- {[object pointer]} MELEKH {king-of} BAVEL {Babylon} SHIV'IM {seventy} SHANAH {year}" - Hebrew Masoretic Text (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia).
"This whole land shall be a desolate ruin. And those nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years." - English translation by The Jewish Publication Society (Tanakh - The Holy Scriptures).
At Jeremiah 29:10, we have the Hebrew words "KI {when} LEPHI {by-mouth-of-me} MELO'TH {to-be-completed} LEVAVEL {for-Babylon} SHIV'IM {seventy} SHANAH {year} 'EPHQOD {I-will-come} 'ETHKHEM {to-you} ", with a modern-day English translation of "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come" (JPS).
COJ's book stresses that the "seventy years" were not years of complete exile, but of servitude, and that this period of time (as expressed in Jeremiah 29:10) was and appointed period where Babylon was allowed dominion not only of Israel but of surrounding nations. In his article entitled "The Babylonians", which appears in the "Lion Handbook to the Bible" (pages 456 & 457), Alan Millard writes: "In 605 BC, Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 BC) defeated the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish and he and his successors maintained their rule with a few campaigns to suppress rebels and secure their frontiers. ... Judah became subject to Babylon after Carchemish, but a few years later King Jehoiakim rebelled. Nebuchadnezzars's army marched to Judah and besieged Jerusalem. The new king, Jehoiachin, was taken prisoner to Babylon with many leading citizens. Cuneiform tablets record rations issued to him and his family there. The siege with its date (15/16 March 597 BC) is entered in the Babylonian Chronicle: 'The king of Babylon...marched to the westland, besieged the city of Judah, capturing it on the second day of Adar. He captured its king, appointed a ruler of his own choice...' Ten years later Nebuchadnezzar returned because Zedekiah, the king he had appointed, revolted. This time the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple and took most of the people to Babylonia (587/6 BC)."
It is interesting that the text of the Greek Septuagint (Bagster) at Jeremiah 25:11 has the words "KAI {and} DOULEUSOUSIN {they-shall-serve} EN {in} TOIS {to/for-the} ETHNESIN {nations} HEBDOMEKONTA {seventy} ETE {year}", with a modern-day English translation of "and they shall serve among the Gentiles seventy years" (Brenton). 2 Kings 23:31-33 tells us that after Judean King Jehoahaz had reigned for three months "Pharaoh Necho put him in chains at Riblah in Hamath, to prevent his reigning any longer in Jerusalem" (according to The New Jerusalem Bible). Necho then took control of the Judean throne by appointing Eliakim the son of Josiah, while levying a tax on the people of the country (verses 34 & 35). If this action, which occurred in 609 BC, was the start of Judah's "serving among the nations" then Cyrus' liberation date of 539 would certainly give us "seventy years".
Alex. -
8
Challenge To Evolutionists And Creationists
by Shemittah inchallenge to evolutionists and creationists
i think its true to say that many evolutionists and creationists read books and other writings authored by people who hold to their particular view.
i'd like to to issue a challenge to individuals from both camps to read at least one book (cover to cover) written by someone writing for the other side (if you haven't already).. .
-
-
Shemittah
Rem: Thanks for your comments.
I mentioned Cremo's book because it deals specifically with primate fossils, and I realise it offers only one side of the coin, that is why I'm interested in a book on this subject from an evolutionist. The first book you mentioned sounds interesting. I would not count the "creation book" for the reason that I believe there are better books that deal with the subject that do not come from a particular religious source. The one book I would recommend to others is "Darwin On Trial", it is not a very long read, but addresses a number of subjects covering fossils, vertebrate sequence, molecular evidence, prebiological evolution, the rules of science, etc. If you are prepared to read at least one book from a creationist, read this one.
Unfortunately, I failed to notice that book I agreed to read is over 2,000 pages long, rather than the 200-400 page books I'm used to reading! So it will take me some months before I will be able to say I've read it from cover to cover.
Alex. -
36
Do You Still Feel Obliged To Answer To The Elders?
by minimus in.
for some, there is real fear that they must speak to the elders if they decide to stop by your house .some don't know what they will do if the elders begin questioning them.
what will you do if they want to talk to you?
-
-
Shemittah
Not these days. They gave up asking questions years ago!
Alex. -
8
Challenge To Evolutionists And Creationists
by Shemittah inchallenge to evolutionists and creationists
i think its true to say that many evolutionists and creationists read books and other writings authored by people who hold to their particular view.
i'd like to to issue a challenge to individuals from both camps to read at least one book (cover to cover) written by someone writing for the other side (if you haven't already).. .
-
-
Shemittah
Francois, It's a deal.
I've ordered the book from Amazon, but it may take a few days to arrive. I will try to read it from cover to cover within the next 2 weeks (I already have a couple of books I'm in the middle of reading at the moment). I will give a resume of it when I've finished reading it. It sounds extremely interesting!
Alex. -
8
Challenge To Evolutionists And Creationists
by Shemittah inchallenge to evolutionists and creationists
i think its true to say that many evolutionists and creationists read books and other writings authored by people who hold to their particular view.
i'd like to to issue a challenge to individuals from both camps to read at least one book (cover to cover) written by someone writing for the other side (if you haven't already).. .
-
-
Shemittah
Challenge To Evolutionists And Creationists
I think its true to say that many evolutionists and creationists read books and other writings authored by people who hold to their particular view. I'd like to to issue a challenge to individuals from both camps to read at least one book (cover to cover) written by someone writing for the other side (if you haven't already).
I am a person who is not convinced by the assertions of evolutionists that life evolved spontaneously into all the different forms we see today. I don't like it when people use the "well everybody accepts it as fact" or "virtually all scientists accept it as fact" as an intellectual strongarm tactic into making those who disagree look stupid; such intellectual bullying is hardly an honourable way of persuading people to accept the truth as a certain person or group sees it. I would very much like to read a book on evolution by an evolutionist, but get the impression that I would be subjected to that sort of strategy, rather than an unemotional walk through what evolutionist claim they have as tangible proof. What I am looking for in particular is a book that provides detailed information about human/human-like/ape/ape-like fossils, with honesty in presenting what actually has been found - i.e. I want to know what part of, say, a skull for display is real bone, and which is fabricated to fill in any gaps. I don't want to be bogged down by endless theories about how man evolved, I want to be free to come to my own conclusions based on what we actually know to be fact.
I personally would be willing to take up the challenge set here. I would therefore be interested in hearing anyone's recommendations. For any evolutionist (or indeed anyone else) I would recommend the book "Darwin On Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson (second edition). I found "Bones Of Contention" by Marvin L. Lubenow very interesting in its discussion of the fossil record as it relates to primates, but felt somewhat irritated by its occasional excursions into preachiness, and the last few chapters in particular are given over to trying to convince its readers of a literal seven-day creation. "Forbidden Archaeology" by Michael A. Cremo is one book I plan to read sometime which claims that there are fossils which contradict the common evolutionary claims with regard to man's appearance on this earth, such as the skeleton that was found in rock that, according to modern geological reports, is 500 million years old.
Personally, I have read online articles from evolutionist sources, resulting in a better understanding of how evolutionists think and how taxonomy and micro/macro evolution fits into the scheme of things. We all owe it to ourselves to free our minds so that we can think for ourselves, and not allow someone else to do the thinking for us, no matter how expert that person may appear to be, whether they wear the robe of a "priest" or the white coat of a scientist. Shutting ourselves off from considering the other person's argument may mean we pay a very high price, intellectually, emotionally, or physically. We could lose Please consider the following extract from John Taylor Gatto's book "The Underground History Of American Education" (page 210), where the then eight-year-old author was in a class being taught by a Jesuit priest: After a brief lecture on each combatant and its cultural and historical characteristics, an outline of incitements to conflict was chalked on the board.
"Who will volunteer to face the back of the room and tell us the causes of World War One?"
"I will, Brother Michael", I said. And I did.
"Why did you say what you did?"
"Because that's what you wrote."
"Do you accept my explanation as correct?"
"Yes, sir." I expected a compliment would soon follow, as it did with our regular teacher.
"Then you must be a fool, Mr Gatto. I lied to you. Those are not the causes at all." It was like being flattened by a steamroller. I had the sensation of being struck and losing the power of speech. Nothing remotely similar had ever happened to me.
"Listen carefully, Mr Gatto, and I shall show you the true causes of the war which men of bad character try to hide," and so saying he rapidly erased the board and in swift fashion another list of reasons appeared. As each was written, a short, clear explanation followed in a scholarly tone of voice.
"Now do you see, Mr Gatto, why you must be careful when you accept the explanation of another? Don't these new reasons make much more sense?"
"Yes, sir."
"And could you now face the back of the room and repeat what you just learned?"
"I could, sir." And I knew I could because I had a strong memory, but he never gave me that chance.
"Why are you so gullible? Why do you believe my lies? Is it because I wear clothing you associate with men of God? I despair you are so easy to fool. What will happen to you if you let others do your thinking for you?"
You see, like a great magician he had shifted that commonplace school lesson we would have forgotten by the next morning into a formidable challenge to the entire contents of our private minds, raising the important question, "Who can we believe?" At eight, while public school children were reading stories about talking animals, we had been escorted to the eggshell-thin foundation upon which authoritarian vanity rests and asked to inspect it.
There are many reasons to lie to children, the Jesuit said, and these seem good reasons to older men. Some truth you will know by divine intuition, he told us, but for the rest you must learn what tests to apply. Even then you should be cautious because it is not hard to fool even these.
Comments please!
Alex.