Intelligence based on choice

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

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.

Is this now according to your knowledge or according to actual facts?Which part of the Bible has been proven wrong?Where can I find a complete scientific explanation of how everything that had to happen for evolution to be possible happened.God told us how He did it and modern dating techniques supports a young earth more and more, which is precisely what we learn from Genesis. 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?

quote:

---

Is this now according to your knowledge or according to actual facts?
Which part of the Bible has been proven wrong?

---

Take your pick. From the failure to find any evidence whatsoever for the exodous, to the non-existence of David and Solomon (never mentioned by any other cultures written history), to the absolute nonsense of the creationist myth and the flood myth.It's practically all wrong.

quote:

---

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

---

At your local library. Visit it.

quote:

---

God told us how He did it.

---

No he didn't. You're getting all of this information out of some book of very questionable authenticity, not from God. That is, unless God has spoken to you personally...

quote:

---

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

---

No modern dating techniques support a young earth.

quote:

---

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?

---

We have archaeological evidence to support the fact that humans were living in small settlements up to 100,000 years ago. I think that constitutes a valid counter argument.The paleontological evidence for the existence of homo-sapiens goes back about 200,000 years I believe.[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 09-18-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:
[B]God told us how He did it and modern dating techniques supports a young earth more and more, which is precisely what we learn from Genesis.[/quote][/b]Please cite - I know of none.

quote:

---

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?

---

Where did this figure of 10,000 years come from? I understand that creationists accept that the bible indicates a figure of approx 4000BC for the creation, giving us approx 6000 years ago. If you have proof that life started 10,000 years ago then you have already proved the bible wrong.

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:
Is this now according to your knowledge or according to actual facts?

​

Which part of the Bible has been proven wrong?

​

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

​

God told us how He did it and modern dating techniques supports a young earth more and more, which is precisely what we learn from Genesis. 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?

---

Here's the sort of evidence which Christians see as proof that all of the bible is true.I.E. In the story of Puss N Boots the cat visits London England, an actaul place, to see the Queen, a real person who lived, so this proves without a doubt that cats can talk like humans and wear clothing.BTW, how does "modern dating techniques supports a young earth more and more"? Are you speaking of creation science or real science? Which legitimate peer reviewed journals is this in? The ICR site doesn't count.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-19-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:
God told us how He did it and modern dating techniques supports a young earth more and more, which is precisely what we learn from Genesis.

---

God didn't tell you how he did it. You read in a book that claims to be the word of God, that God did it. Perhaps you could tell us exactly what mechanisms God actually used to create the universe, & reference what part of the bible that it's in?Provide peer reviewed scientific literature that supports a young earth "more & more".What a quality claim!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:
God told us how He did it and modern dating techniques supports a young earth more and more, which is precisely what we learn from Genesis.

---

​

God didn't tell you how he did it. You read in a book that claims to be the word of God, that God did it. Perhaps you could tell us exactly what mechanisms God actually used to create the universe, & reference what part of the bible that it's in?

​

Provide peer reviewed scientific literature that supports a young earth "more & more".

​

What a quality claim!

​

Mark

​

---

Don't you know? God works in mysterious ways and it is not up to us poor sinners to understand this so shut up and have some faith that god loves and knows what is best for you. (Note: Sarcasm)[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-19-2002]

Have a look at this site before making any more assumptions about the reliability of the Bible:
Archaeology and the Bible - ChristianAnswers.NetAnd there is no complete explanation for evolution. It cannot for instatnce explain the high frequncy of analogies, discordances in trees of relationship or molecular discontinuities.For more information about the earth's age, have a look at:
http://home.att.net/~creationoutreach/pages/7internt.html

I was meaning to say that the age of the earth is 10000 years or younger. Have a look at
http://home.att.net/~creationoutreach/pages/7internt.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:
I was meaning to say that the age of the earth is 10000 years or younger. Have a look at
http://home.att.net/~creationoutreach/pages/7internt.html

---

Anyone can put up a web site (or are you one of those who thinks that because it is on the web, it is true?). You were asked for specific peer-reviewed research supporting your young earth position. Can you provide this or not?CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 09-23-2002]

For lots of information on how archaeology supports the Bible, have a look at:
Archaeology and the Bible - ChristianAnswers.NetThere are no explanations of how the information necessary for life to start came about without any intelligence present.This is why I think life started less than 10000 years ago:
http://home.att.net/~creationoutreach/pages/7internt.html

The fact that the universe and our solar system is fine-tuned to support life demands for intelligent design.For life to start, information had to start at the same time and there is no possible way in which random specified information can come into existence without an intelligent being originating it.

Originally posted by mopsveldmuis:The fact that the universe and our solar system is fine-tuned to support life demands for intelligent design.Fine tuned? In what way? If the Earth had a methane atmosphere than we would be methane breathers. The Earth isn't "fine tuned" to suppose us, we are adapted to it. The first forms of life on this planet weren't oxygen based.For life to start, information had to start at the same time and there is no possible way in which random specified information can come into existence without an intelligent being originating it.Why not? Please define information in this context.