Intelligence based on choice

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I will repeat again here what I said about intelligent design in the falsification of Natural Selection thread, in the hope that somebody will address the good and bad points of what I propose, now that the subject is in the proper forum. Specifically I am interested in response from creationists.

​

It is possible for even very literalist bible-interpretations of creation to be true, by assuming evolution and complementing it with a theory of intelligence.

​

As far as I know, any definition of intelligence has been largely absent in the intelligent design discipline. Promising scientific definitions of intelligence, as used by people working on artificial intelligence, center on the concept of randomness, chance, choice, or in short, event where things can go one way or another.

​

The point of origin for an organism by this sort of theory of intelligence, is not the point where an organism appears, but it is the point where it is relatively certain that the organism will appear. For example, we could theorize that at some point in time where there are no people at all in the universe, that the relative certainty of any people coming to be is 70 percent.

​

So for biblical literalism to be true by this theory of intelligence, it should be found true that the relative certainties for the main kinds of organism that we have now, and most all else, to have been set in 6 choices at the beginning of the universe. Most everything being a relatively certain aftereffect in respect to these 6 choices.

​

I think it is quite likely to have scientific merit that the main sorts of creatures we have now were already 99 or a 100 percent certain to be here from a point close to the start of the universe. We would still not be able to measure the presence of God of course in these events at the beginning of the universe, they would just look like the randomness in rolling a dice. But still, it is possible for the bible to be quite literally or scientifically true by such a theory of intelligence. That it could be in fact more true to say that the main sorts of organisms with all their sophistication, were created whole in one or a few days which we can pinpoint, then to say they have been gradually evolved.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

It could be true ... if it weren't for all of the
evidence FOR evolution, and the complete lack of evidence for
a literally correct Bible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:
Is this now according to your knowledge or according to actual facts?

---

Facts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:

Which part of the Bible has been proven wrong?

---

I never said any of the Bible had been proved wrong, I said
that there was no evidence to support that it was literally
correct.If you know of some (and I mean literal correctness) please
post it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:

Where can I find a complete scientific explanation of how everything that had to happen for evolution to be possible happened.

---

In the scientific literature ... sure there are some things that
are not fully understood, and some that are not unanimously
accepted inthe scientific communities, but the scientific
explanations are there if you wish to look for them.A lot of it has been posted in various forms on this site.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:

God told us how He did it

---

What evidence do you have of that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:

and modern dating techniques supports a young earth more and more, which is precisely what we learn from Genesis.

---

Which techniques, and how have they been applied?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:

Where is the counter argument to prove that we didn't need any help to be where we are today with life having started 10000 years ago?

---

Evolution is not about refuting creation, and so does not formulate
a counter argument in the way that you would like.ToE is a contrary proposal to creation, and so the entire weight
of evidence in favour of it acts as a counter-argument-by-default.Not sure why you think life started 10,000 years ago though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:
For lots of information on how archaeology supports the Bible, have a look at:
Archaeology and the Bible - ChristianAnswers.Net

---

You've missed my question.I asked for positive evidence for a literal interpretation
of Biblical events. Places and people are not events.There are some threads that deal with lack of evidence for
significant Biblical events (in the biblical accuracy thread).

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:

There are no explanations of how the information necessary for life to start came about without any intelligence present.

---

There is a lot on 'information' in other threads in this topic.What information is necessary for life?
Is there any information in biological systems?
What IS information anyhow?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:

This is why I think life started less than 10000 years ago:
http://home.att.net/~creationoutreach/pages/7internt.html

---

[/B][/QUOTE]I asked for you to post the methods that have been applied
that show the earth to be young.[This message has been edited by Peter, 09-26-2002]