Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are creationist crticisms of ToE based upon the assumption that creation happened?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 37 (41034)
05-22-2003 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Paul
05-22-2003 2:09 PM


My mind simply realizes that "chance has no ability".
Really? None whatsoever? Absolutely none at all? Zero, nada, nothing?
Or just a really, really LOW ability? Cuz my mind says that chance has some ability.
There's a big difference between zero and alomst zero. As big as the difference between nothing and something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Paul, posted 05-22-2003 2:09 PM Paul has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 29 of 37 (41143)
05-23-2003 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Paul
05-23-2003 4:08 PM


Re: Purpose
This is exactly why I cannot believe the TOE. If we can have so many failures with predetermined goals and desired outcomes, driven by intelligence, purpose and power.....how then could it even be remotely possible, that the evolutionary proccess being completely directionless with no intelligence, purpose or power, even achieve anything! let alone the mind boggling complexities that we see in life today?.
I think I see where you're going with this.
Let me see if I can illustrate the error in your thinking via a quote from the movie "The Zero Effect."
quote:
Now, a few words on looking for things. When you go looking for something specific, your chances of finding it are very bad. Because of all the things in the world, you're only looking for one of them. When you go looking for anything at all, your chances of finding it are very good. Because of all the things in the world, you're sure to find some of them.
See, if you set out with a goal in mind, your odds of reaching it are very low. If you set out to accomplish anything at all, you're bound to do it.
Intelligent problem solving - even engineering - isn't a process of creating correct solutions where none existed before. It's a process of filtering out all the impractical or otherwise unsuitable but still very valid solutions and leaving only the most correct solutions. In that sense intelligence is indistinguishable from natural selection.
You mention the driving intelligence behind genetic programming - but what about situations where (for instance) the programmers wanted a basic occilator but wound up with a complex radio reciever? Where was the intelligence there?
The simple fact is, random chance can, over sufficient time, cause any physically possible configuration of matter. Both natural selection and intelligence are simply ways of cutting that time down a bit by searching through the set of all possible configurations through some method.
Honestly, I think the results of GP show something very interesting indeed - that natural selection is a better designer than intelligence.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Paul, posted 05-23-2003 4:08 PM Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2003 11:37 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024