When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY)

Hi Dr, A random number generator. But that is what computers are for.They have hard drives to store information just like DNA except they are far below the capacity of DNA.They have programs that have been programed to assist us with all kinds of things.I have an amazing program that I can draw simple houses with. It will also draw anything I can imagine as long as I can input the proper information.I have hundreds of programs and none of them can do anything by themselves without input programed into them.My $4,000 Chief Architect program can do a lot of things that are programed into it.I can draw a house and to put a roof on all I have to do is tell it what kind of roof I want then click in the middle of the drawing. The roof appears.I can put all the electric plugs in a room according to the southern building code by the click of a mouse button.All these things are programed into it by an intelligent designer. In fact a team of intelligent designers.But the program is useless unless I input information.So I get out of the computer exactly what is input into it. Nothing more and nothing less.Now that random mutation generator is something else. You can give it any information you want and it can destroy it in short order.But I can't get it to create any information. It is not an intelligent designer.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, I thought it would be beyond you and I was right. Your understanding is very basic and flawed yet you seem comfortable asserting in the basis of it. My understanding is much deeper and accurate and yet I am always careful to qualify where required and say 'don't know' where true. You just make blizzard of half-true and completely wrong assertions and carry on spouting the nonsense.It all makes me wonder whether you are a fairly new YECT (young earth creationist troll) or an older hand just demonstrating the basic techniques of religious trolling to young acolytes.....Writing a passage on 'nothing' as though I had some misconception and you could clear it up is pretty comical.
Here's another way of looking at nothing : 0=-1+1
Oops, how did that happen? Nothing changed into something....surely not.It is also amusing that you now strongly assert that which before you would not accept - t=0 at BB. Having lost that debate you now adopt what you have managed to scavenge and try to use it to advantage. The trouble is you don't understand it so rather like your earlier resort to plagiarism, you parrot that which you don't understand and it quickly becomes obvious to anyone who does.
I'm also amused to see you now seem to know what Roger Penrose thinks. You have scratched the surface and got about 10% of one of his theses. He isn't trying to prove what you state, he is looking to see what happens if he uses another approach - Weyl curvature - because that is what he does. He theorises at the edges. He isn't trying to prove anything, he is just seeing what happens when you do x or assume y or change z. He is brilliant and that is his ouvre - thinking the unthinkable and, more importantly, quantifying and rationalising it.
You won't understand, but I'll give you the link anyway - here is an audio-visual presentation of his thesis.
Lecture 1: Before the Big Bang? | CosmoLearning AstronomyBut if I were you I wouldn't try Penrose yet. Start with a ladybird primer on Newton. When you have understood the 17th century stuff - and that will take you months, at least, then you might be ready for some more modern physics and you can then move into the 19th century. After 4 years of hard study then look me up and I'll talk to you about modern physics and you might even understand it.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

But neural networks are - try one out on your PC and see if you can understand the basics.
Here is a basic idiot's guide:
http://www.alexandria.nu/ai/neural_net_demo/Here is a chance to try a small model to see if you understand the basics.
http://www.cbu.edu/~pong/ai/hopfield/hopfieldapplet.htmlIf you do then here is something bigger and more useful.http://www.neurosolutions.com/Now why not actually go and learn something, then you will be able to talk on the matter for more than a couple of lines without lying or misrepresenting.

You understand the difference between some and all, right? Don't they still teach that on Sesame Street? That some information came from a mind doesn't prove that all of it does. I have evidence this information came from a creator (me.) I'm asking for evidence that all of it has to, which you've not provided.

Um, no, that's not at all true. The complete human genome is only 750 megabytes. That's approximately one-onethousandth the storage of a modern personal computer.If you want to download the complete human genome to your computer, you can get it chromosome by chromosome here: Browse By Author: H | Project GutenbergEdited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Youre asking if random number generators exist?Yes. No, the point of computers is to output different information from what is input.A machine with the same output as its input is called a photocopier. Bollocks.Why do you say stuff without trying to find out if it's true? Again, that would be a photocopier. It is also not a genetic algorithm.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It is again typical that you ignore the clear evidence that your thesis wrong and continue as if nothing happened. Did you read the posting on neural nets? I guess not. But just to repeat - that is an example of a 'computer program' (better not called that because it isn't really - let's call it a 'processing system') which IS DEFINITELY NOT programmed, does NOT only give out what is put in and, in fact, in most cases are beyond analysis because of the complexity of the switch/branching system that evolves. You teach it like a child. You press a 'nice' button when it gets the right answer (this stabilises the path weightings for that output) and you press the 'naughty' button when it gets it wrong (which alters the path/weightings).
At first it gets as many wrong as right - it doesn't even know what it is supposed to output. As you train it, it begins to get more right. With a sufficiently good net and good training, the system can become BETTER than the experts. Examples of such a system is the AI Neural net used in the US to diagnose disease in soya-bean crops. I know that sounds a bit prosaic for high-tech but it is big business. The net is reckoned to be at least as accurate in diagnosis as the world's leading expert in the field.So this effectively destroys the 'what you put in, you get out' argument and if you have any integrity you will find something else and stop repeating this blatantly dishonesty.

But I did

quote:

---

Perhaps the universe's past is it's future or it's future triggered it's past.

---

I'm not saying it's the case but is it not an option? Do you understand the nature of the Universe? The nature of time? yet He/it created everything? So the Universe has always existed? Where is this intelligence?

Hi, ICANT. I know that this is what you believe. I'm trying to get you to understand that the things you've been arguing on this thread do not support this.----- You need to step back and realize that the argument you've been making on this thread does not support this.You say that requiring intelligence to design a set of rules (i.e. a computer program) on which an antenna is evolved to functionality without further intelligent input is the same as requiring intelligence to design a functional antenna.But, this is not the same thing. The set of rules was designed to mimic non-intelligent processes. These non-intelligent processes then produced something that looks like it was designed.You seemingly acknowledged that this is what happened, and then argued that an intelligent process was needed to design those non-intelligent rules.So, in a nutshell, you are saying that even non-intelligence has to be designed by intelligence.Is this what you believe?If so, then evolutionists and scientists have been right all along, except that they have to convert to Deism (which isn’t that big a change for most of us, anyway).If not, then evolutionists and scientists have been right all along, and we theists don’t have a leg to stand on.Either way, you can’t support your beliefs in Intelligent Design with this argument.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Oh dear.... Offline for 3 days, and when I return another 180 posts later in this thread;Blathering? My post says very simply "You have the scientific knowledge of a (very) small child and you are arguing here with practicing scientists - don't you think you are (overwhelmingly) out of your league?"You make my point for me when you post tripe such as thinking that matter phases are the stuff of chemistry - my daughter learnt that this year in junior grade basic physics class.I bet you think the Big Bang was a chemical explosion don't you!What a crock! Do you happen to sell used-cars for a living by any chance?I repeat again - "Stick with the faith threads because here you just look a jackass - apart from the fact that you have no intention to learn.I've also noticed that when one of our esteemed science posters finally rams home a point that even you (finally) can't refute - you meekly "acknowledge" the reply - you don't even have the guts to say "OK - fair do's I've learnt something new today."You know - when you do realise that you are actually learning some new things (as opposed to blindly refuting everything on principle) you may actually begin to enjoy what you are finding out.....the rest of us do.

Hi everyone.....FANTASTIC DISCOVERY.......Scientists (especially cosmologists) have been aching for years to have a singularity close at hand to work with - to test all those exotic space-time hypotheses. But the paradox has been - a singularity large enough to meaningfully explore would be deadly due to its proximity.We were wrong....the singularity has been with us all along. it goes by the name of ICANT - and it consumes huge amounts of data with absolutely nothing coming back out...for all practical purposes it satisfies the working description we have of black holes (although rumour has it that it spews out huge amounts of word-salad through a companion 'white gusher' end of a possible worm hole.Both ends of this worm-hole apparently are currently occupying a cyber-time (this worm-hole has done away with the physical absurdity known as space-time) area currently labelled "evolutionary debate board", though it is possible the tunnel could rotate to other cyber regions.Occasionally a companion hole (virtual pairing??) known as Boulder-Dash swings through the cyber-time into the local cluster, consuming yet more data-time and equally returning nothing - but as before a virulent white gusher has been evidenced spewing particularly chaotic word-salad. Other black-holes pop up from time to time - possibly as a result of Hawking Radiation.Latest theories abound on what happens when enough of these itinerant holes coalesce. One possibility is that scientific advancement may be 'gobbled-up' in a sort of time-reverse shift. The best-fit maths model suggests that this would result in a time-reverse of approximately 4350 years. At this point of the space-time rip we would inexplicably see a wooden boat floating alone in a vast sea, with rain pouring down incessantly.Those with good eyesight may notice graffiti daubed on the side of the boat - "Dumbass evilutionists....!"...............................................................................................................Sorry for the diversion folks - sometimes all you can do is smile!!Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Yes, correct sir.- Oni

quote:

---

FANTASTIC DISCOVERY.......

---

Dear Sir/Madam,
I read with interest your paper on the naked singularity known as ICANT.
I must take issue with you about your classification. I have been studying ICANT for some time as part of a wider study of exotic galactic entities, and I can assure you that ICANT is not a singularity. This is easily confirmed by observing the rotation. Indeed this object is, as far as I know, unique in that it rotates freely on at least 3 major axis AT THE SAME TIME (my research students are working on an alternative mathematics with which to model this).Now, as you know, a conventional Kerr BH rotates around a single axis and can, through the Penrose Process, produce ergospheric energy, with the accompanying loss of rotational momentum - eventually leading to a conventional Schwarzschild black hole.
I observed several emissions of energy in the expected region, but on closer examination the energy was incoherent, with no focus, and quickly dissipated into surrounding space leaving no sensible trace.
Further measurements by spectroscopy reveal that the body is composed almost entirely of a superheated mixture of O2, He, H, Ni and various trace gasses. Finally our gravitic sensors show that the body actually has a very insubstantial mass, leading to the conclusion that there is no solid core and therefore that ICANT is simply a new type of Gas Giant. You will also have noticed that the shadow cast by this body is not circular or even eliptical, indicating a non-spherical configuration. Indeed we have reason to suspect that the object has a hole right through the centre..I have therefore written to the appropriate authorities and suggested that we adopt a new classification - tentatively known as a Stellar Hot-air Insubstantial Torus.Yours sincerely...

Hi crash, Can I use this agrument when we argue about evolution.I am told because we can see some things evolve to a certain point that infers that evolution of all things took place from a single cell life form to present day life forms. So can I ask for and demand the evidence for the parts of evvolution that has never been observed in the so-called process of evolution.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi crash, I have a 1T hard drive I think they have one now at 1.5T. It is 3" wide and 5" long and 3/4" thick. 1.5T = 1500 Gib. = 15,000 mgb.A human cell = 5 um = 1 nanogram.
1,000,000,000 nanograms = 1 gram, = 750,000,000,000 mgb. 750,000,000,000 megabytes = 750,000,000 Gb = 750,000 T.So we have 750,000 times the information stored in 1 gram of human DNA as can be stored in 1T hard drive. How much could you store in human DNA that had the weight or size of a 1T hard drive?The intelligent designer that designed the human DNA was a lot smarter than human designers are.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."