From thier point of view the Bible book of Genesis, the universe was created
by God less than ten thousand years ago. They also say that the earth and
its life-forms were created in six literal 24-hour days.
On the other hand, evolutionary thinking views Genesis as a myth. It teaches
that the universe and the earth, with all its living things, are the product
of a chance evolutionary process that spanned billions of years.
However, there are many who are uncomfortable with both of these theories.
Parts of the scientific-creationist theory seem to contradict common sense
and also go against the evidence we can see for ourselves throughout nature.
Yet, the idea that life in all its wonderful complexity is merely the
product of blind evolutionary forces seems hard for many to accept. Are
these two views, then, the only alternatives?

In article ,
says...

Falacy 1.

A mutation in an HOX gene can result in new structures.

If the code for the structure is already there, a mutation could
activate it, but it would not the the cause of the structure.


Falacy 2

The designers only have to design the program because
computers require programs to be designed.
Nature doesn't work that way.

The laws of information apply to everything. Once the need
for design is established, it applies to nature.

Question 1.

Then why do genetic algorithms work?

Genetic code is designed to work, that is why it works.

They don't require "oversight" to design new functions,
the only "oversight" required is to build the
simulation of natural processes.

This is a gross simplification with a faulty conclusion.

There is no "Carnot's Law" for information science.

But there is law just a deadly to ME (Mindless Evolution).

The genetic copying mechanism can not convert random
errors into complex working structures, because

information has a quantified value.

This is a true statement.

If the error is one bit, the most information
that can be added is one bit.

This is also a true statement.

If the new structure requires 1000 bits of information, that
information has to come from some where.

This is also a true statement.

It could be transfered from another species by a virus but
it could never come about by mutation or chance.

The speculation is from evolutionists trying to
explain evidence of sudden complex change.

Nonsense.

it contradicts "evolutionist" belief.

The AIDS virus uses
mutations as a defense, but that does not create anything.

It creates new, functional AIDS viruses.

Same virus, same disease, different outer covering which makes it
extremely difficult to develop a vaccine.

Oh, so there is a difference and they're still functional.

The virus may have more "intellegence" than evolutionists.

What "facts" are you refering to?

How it works, what the results are, what kinds of
inputs are required to get those results.

The above statement contains no facts!

It works because it was designed to work.
The results are ususlly as expected, but sometimes surprising.
The imputs are designed to get the desired results.
(out of range inputs could cause overflow errors and chaos)

Without direction it would just go in circles.

Spirals. The "direction" comes from the environment.

Spirals and circles both move around a point. If the
point, established by forces in the environment, is a
dead end, the directon needed for positive change
will be away from the point.

A lot of intellegent work is necessary for "evolution" to be of
any use solving problems.

The only thing that has to be designed for an evolutionary algorithm
to work is a simulation of the natural processes of genetics.

Which is a task that requires a lot of creativity.

The need for creativity to resolve complex problems
associated with the origin of life is not made less
complex by assuming it is the result of more primitive
processes.

The initial state of an automation is as important as the
rules for the automation. If you make the "cell" smart
enough, you can remove the need for intellegent intervention
at the level of species. And if you make the atoms smart enough
you can remove the need for intellegent cells, etc. This shifting
transfers complexity from the intial state to more fundemental
properties and would cause great programing difficutlies.

Life from it's subatomic foundation to consciousnesses is not
the result of a mindless random process.

jrh



It does not lessen the need for an intellegent designer, it
makes it greater, and all the evidence shows without a doubt
that physics has not evolved since the Universe was Created.


No, it doesn't show that at all.

The only reason life survives is because the genetic code has
many different ECC's operating that correct damaged information,
and make it "perfect". When the damage can not be corrected,
illness or death follow.

Most "errors" in the copying of DNA result in protein products
that still work, though with perhaps less efficiency.

I am sure there are many ways the genetic code corrects errors,
and if they can not be corrected, the organism usually dies.

*Usually* is the point here. When they don't, they pass on the
changes.

Which *Usually* cause defects in future generations.
etc.

And which *usually* get weeded out so that the *beneficial* changes
propagate.

Variations are not really *changes* in terms of new features, and they
may or may not be *beneficial* depending on the environment, and
in large population they are most likely redundant.


Then a breast isn't really a *change* from a sweat gland. And a heart
isn't really a *change* from a lung.

clip

Random processes can solve certain classes of problens, but
those processes have to be designed to use randomness,
if the random variables go out of bounds, the process crashes!

Once cells acquire the ability to support intellegence, the
attributes of God can enter into any cellular system and control
the process from within. The manifistation of consciousness
and intellegence within the biosphere is an established fact.

Consciouness and intelligence are processes that execute on (for
now) biological computing systems (aka brains).

snip gibberish

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?

(jrh) wrote in news:UfZcc.1656$qV6.628@fed1read04:

In article ,
says...

Falacy 1.

A mutation in an HOX gene can result in new structures.

If the code for the structure is already there, a mutation could
activate it, but it would not the the cause of the structure.


False.


Falacy 2

The designers only have to design the program because
computers require programs to be designed.
Nature doesn't work that way.

The laws of information apply to everything. Once the need
for design is established, it applies to nature.


False again.

Question 1.

Then why do genetic algorithms work?

Genetic code is designed to work, that is why it works.


False again.

They don't require "oversight" to design new functions,
the only "oversight" required is to build the
simulation of natural processes.

This is a gross simplification with a faulty conclusion.

There is no "Carnot's Law" for information science.

But there is law just a deadly to ME (Mindless Evolution).


False again.

The genetic copying mechanism can not convert random
errors into complex working structures, because

information has a quantified value.

This is a true statement.

If the error is one bit, the most information
that can be added is one bit.

This is also a true statement.

If the new structure requires 1000 bits of information, that
information has to come from some where.

This is also a true statement.

It could be transfered from another species by a virus but
it could never come about by mutation or chance.

The speculation is from evolutionists trying to
explain evidence of sudden complex change.

Nonsense.

it contradicts "evolutionist" belief.


Don't be so stupid.

The AIDS virus uses
mutations as a defense, but that does not create anything.

It creates new, functional AIDS viruses.

Same virus, same disease, different outer covering which makes it
extremely difficult to develop a vaccine.

Oh, so there is a difference and they're still functional.

The virus may have more "intellegence" than evolutionists.


And insulting.

What "facts" are you refering to?

How it works, what the results are, what kinds of
inputs are required to get those results.

The above statement contains no facts!


Facts are facts.

It works because it was designed to work.
The results are ususlly as expected, but sometimes surprising.
The imputs are designed to get the desired results.
(out of range inputs could cause overflow errors and chaos)

Without direction it would just go in circles.

Spirals. The "direction" comes from the environment.

Spirals and circles both move around a point. If the
point, established by forces in the environment, is a
dead end, the directon needed for positive change
will be away from the point.

A lot of intellegent work is necessary for "evolution" to be of
any use solving problems.

The only thing that has to be designed for an evolutionary
algorithm to work is a simulation of the natural processes of
genetics.

Which is a task that requires a lot of creativity.


False again.

The need for creativity to resolve complex problems
associated with the origin of life is not made less
complex by assuming it is the result of more primitive
processes.


False again.

The initial state of an automation is as important as the
rules for the automation. If you make the "cell" smart
enough, you can remove the need for intellegent intervention
at the level of species. And if you make the atoms smart enough
you can remove the need for intellegent cells, etc. This shifting
transfers complexity from the intial state to more fundemental
properties and would cause great programing difficutlies.

Life from it's subatomic foundation to consciousnesses is not
the result of a mindless random process.


Dogmatic conclusion, reached without intelligence, from a whole series
of falsehoods.

jrh



It does not lessen the need for an intellegent designer, it
makes it greater, and all the evidence shows without a doubt
that physics has not evolved since the Universe was Created.


No, it doesn't show that at all.

The only reason life survives is because the genetic code has
many different ECC's operating that correct damaged
information, and make it "perfect". When the damage can not
be corrected, illness or death follow.

Most "errors" in the copying of DNA result in protein products
that still work, though with perhaps less efficiency.

I am sure there are many ways the genetic code corrects errors,
and if they can not be corrected, the organism usually dies.

*Usually* is the point here. When they don't, they pass on the
changes.

Which *Usually* cause defects in future generations.
etc.

And which *usually* get weeded out so that the *beneficial* changes
propagate.

Variations are not really *changes* in terms of new features, and
they may or may not be *beneficial* depending on the environment,
and in large population they are most likely redundant.


Then a breast isn't really a *change* from a sweat gland. And a heart
isn't really a *change* from a lung.

clip

Random processes can solve certain classes of problens, but
those processes have to be designed to use randomness,
if the random variables go out of bounds, the process crashes!

Once cells acquire the ability to support intellegence, the
attributes of God can enter into any cellular system and
control the process from within. The manifistation of
consciousness and intellegence within the biosphere is an
established fact.

Consciouness and intelligence are processes that execute on
(for now) biological computing systems (aka brains).

snip gibberish

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?





--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?

Subject: SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISTS


Again the term is an oxymoron, you are a troll and the only flaw in evolution
is that is produces dead ends like you. Do all Jehovia witneses act like you?
If so than next time they come around I won't be polite I'll run them off my
propertyand press trepassing charges. You obviously came from the shallow end
of the gene pool. You are too stupid to even argue your own point. What is it
about evolution that bother you the most? That you might be some how related to
a monkey (that's obvious so it must not be a problem) Personally I think that
evolution insults the monkeys if you are suppooed to be superior to them. Why
don't you go out and earn the darwin award for the year. I know it would be a
challenge for someone with your mental capasity.Do humanity a favor, don't
reproduce. I never realized they made IQ numbers in negatives. I bet you are
the life of the party, oops I forgot your religion doesn't party, doesn't
slaute the flag, celibrate Christs birthday or have sex except to procreate. No
wonder you are in such a bad mood. Were you born a Jehovia's witness or did
they convert you? I wonder if they would now that they know what they got.

Moon

Yea, verily, I say unto you that on this date (08 Apr 2004 01:26:23 GMT)
ospam (Moontanman) didst appear within my Magick
Viewing Screen and, being somewhat pleasantly supplicatory, did
polemicize thusly:

Do all Jehovia witneses act like you?
If so than next time they come around I won't be polite I'll run them
off my propertyand press trepassing charges.

Unfortunately, here in the USA, they, like politicians, have
Constitutional rights to harass you in your home. A much better tactic
is to tell them that you are Catholic*.

* or throw 'em in the pond

Cybe R. Wizard -remember, "...and by their works shall ye know them."
--
Unofficial "Wizard of Odds," A.H.P.
Original PORG "Water Wizard," R.P.
"Wize(ned) Wizard," A.P.F-P-Y.
Barely Tolerated Wizard, A.J.L & A.A.L

In alt.talk.creationism, (jrh) wrote in
rEjbc.112155$cx5.3141@fed1read04:
In article , says...

Jabriol wrote:

From thier point of view the Bible book of Genesis,
the universe was created by God less than ten thousand years ago.
clip

First, evolution has nothing whatsoever to say concerning the
creation of the universe or the Earth. It is only concerned
with what happens to life once it exists.

that's why Darwins book was titled "ORIGIN of Species"

Yes, it didn't say Origin of _Life_.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Regarding that, the alternatives fall into two sharply divided
camps. You can go with the evidence and believe evolution. Or
you can dismiss the evidence and reject evolution.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, How can anyone be so blind?
All of the evidence points to and suports Creation.

Please, point to any evidence for creation.

There are a countless number of processes that
depend on intellegence, unfortunately evolutionist thinking
does not appear to be one of them.

Your assertions all seem to have empty lists of evidence to support
them.

If you choose option two it doesn't really matter what you
jump for.
Believe in creationism,
believe aliens bred with apes,
believe the universe was sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure,
it's all just fantasy designed to make you feel comfortable
that your chosen world view is correct.

The mindless slime theory fits right in at the top of the list.

jrh

oooohhhhh.. a domey on the rec.ponds list??? Ingrid

ospam (Moontanman) wrote:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

In article ,
says...

(jrh) wrote in news:9kkcc.163443$cx5.122227@fed1read04:

In article ,

says...

clipitall

ECC's in computer processes are used to make imperfect information
perfect. No one with any understanding of computer science
would ever believe programs could evolve into better programs because
of random errors.

False.

You have just demonstrated you have no understanding of
computer science. If you want to test your "theory"
write some random data to your hard drive.

There is that part of computer science that deals with
evolutionary programming (aka "Genetic programming")

Randomness has to be contained for there to be any chance of
positive change. I am fully awair of processes that use random
selection, and know their limitations. Many problems cause
such algorythms to move away from solutions not towards them.

The only reason life survives is because the genetic code has
many different ECC's operating that correct damaged information,
and make it "perfect". When the damage can not be corrected,
illness or death follow.

Most "errors" in the copying of DNA result in protein products that
still work, though with perhaps less efficiency.

Iam sure there are many ways the genetic code corrects errors,
and if they can not be corrected, the organism usually dies.

clip

Random processes can solve certain classes of problens, but
those processes have to be designed to use randomness,
if the random variables go out of bounds, the process crashes!

Once cells acquire the ability to support intellegence, the
attributes of God can enter into any cellular system and control
the process from within. The manifistation of consciousness
and intellegence within the biosphere is an established fact.

Consciouness and intelligence are processes that execute on (for now)
biological computing systems (aka brains).

Yes in man and many undiscovered places.

The belief that man arrose from mindless slime is an
anti-intellectual superstition, devised by an evil spirit
and spread by usefull idiots, so that many might be enslaved
to it's will.

giberish cliped

jrh

jrh wrote:

In article ,
says...

clipitall

ECC's in computer processes are used to make imperfect information
perfect. No one with any understanding of computer science
would ever believe programs could evolve into better programs because
of random errors.

The only reason life survives is because the genetic code has
many different ECC's operating that correct damaged information,
and make it "perfect". When the damage can not be corrected,
illness or death follow.

Random processes can solve certain classes of problens, but
those processes have to be designed to use randomness,
if the random variables go out of bounds, the process crashes!

Once cells acquire the ability to support intellegence, the
attributes of God can enter into any cellular system and control
the process from within. The manifistation of consciousness
and intellegence within the biosphere is an established fact.

The belief that man arrose from mindless slime is an
anti-intellectual superstition, devised by an evil spirit
and spread by usefull idiots, so that many might be enslaved
to it's will.

jrh

Well what would you say if the actual creation of man by God involved
making him from mindless slime?

In alt.talk.creationism, "jabriol" wrote in
:

On 2-Apr-2004, David Jensen wrote:

We have learned why life changes from generation to generation. It is
called _evolution_. Life has had the same processes for as long as we
have any evidence about it.

has it?

question.. how did "life" learned to change?

It didn't learn to change. Life changes over time because genetic
replication is imperfect.

I. The Creation/Evolution debate is two separate debates.


You are pretty good at the old "if you can't Dazzle them with brilliance Baffle
them with bullshit" credo but SCIENTIFIC CREATIONIST is an oxymoron.


Moon

Let 'Swine" not be taken negative, just a term for one not "evolved"
enough to be able to handle reality. That's you, oh knuckle-dragger.


What is really scary is this guy might at some point be responsible for
deciding what type of cirriculum real students will have to study leaving them
totally unprepared for the real world.

Moon

"Jabriol" wrote in message
...


From thier point of view the Bible book of Genesis, the universe was
created
by God less than ten thousand years ago. They also say that the earth and
its life-forms were created in six literal 24-hour days.
On the other hand, evolutionary thinking views Genesis as a myth. It
teaches
that the universe and the earth, with all its living things, are the
product
of a chance evolutionary process that spanned billions of years.
However, there are many who are uncomfortable with both of these theories.
Parts of the scientific-creationist theory seem to contradict common sense
and also go against the evidence we can see for ourselves throughout
nature.
Yet, the idea that life in all its wonderful complexity is merely the
product of blind evolutionary forces seems hard for many to accept. Are
these two views, then, the only alternatives?

http://webpages.charter.net/clickfam/origins.htm

Ron said:

A lot of stuff about SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISTS.

A nice topic to discuss on all of the crossposted groups with the exception
of this one.




Dave
http://members.tripod.com/~VideoDave

Thank you.