Synthetic life.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2013, 12:50 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 10:47 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 10:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There is evidence of guided evolution all around you. You just need to lift your head from the sands of evolution is exclusivly a biological process to see it.


Wait I can see it now. I just needed my bible goggles.
[Image: S5ZlZMY.jpg]

The joke fizzles since I am asking you to put away your biased notions and look at the world objectively.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 01:13 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(27-03-2013 12:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 10:47 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Wait I can see it now. I just needed my bible goggles.
[Image: S5ZlZMY.jpg]

The joke fizzles since I am asking you to put away your biased notions and look at the world objectively.

Something you have demonstrated you either can't or won't do here yourself.

You continually fail to grasp that you are merging two arguments in one and keep trying to assault other posters because they aren't doing something you want.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 01:48 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(27-03-2013 01:13 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(27-03-2013 12:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The joke fizzles since I am asking you to put away your biased notions and look at the world objectively.

You continually fail to grasp that you are merging two arguments in one and keep trying to assault other posters because they aren't doing something you want.

I pretty sure other people derailed this thread...admittedly I went along since I had gotten what I was looking for by starting this thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 02:47 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(23-03-2013 12:35 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(23-03-2013 02:38 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The intelligent creation proposal destroys itself because there's nothing to create the intelligent creator.

Theism basically boils down to intellect being fundamental.

And the problem is that it isn't in reality.. Plants don't need intellect to move in a 3D space out of the shade and into the sunlight. No intellect required. Theism thinks intelligence is required when it is actually not. You might like to look up Chaos theory and emergence, or the fundamentals of artificial intelligence.. Hence what really rules out intelligent design argument is two things:

1. two questions:
Creation of life? Is this creator dead before creating life?

2. A Conscious state by all means can not likely exist without cause... As in various processes and sensory systems would be required to sustain even a computer level of artificial intelligence, or basic reactionary systems we find in biological processes and in life to which are electromagnetic phenomenon for the most part. To support a conscious state requires incredibly far more complex processes and systems to support a full state of awareness to which includes a self-awareness..

How do you Hollywood address these issues if you think intelligence is fundamental?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 02:59 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(27-03-2013 12:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The joke fizzles since I am asking you to put away your biased notions and look at the world objectively.
Coming from you? Good one. Laughat

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 08:44 AM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2013 07:28 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Synthetic life.
(26-03-2013 10:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 09:47 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Chas, this is the same nonsense HJ was spewing on the thread "Defining Evolution".

In the defining evolution thread I replaced "selective filter" just for you Fullcircle.

I know you did and I thought we were making progress. But as you readily admit here you are continuing to espouse a congruence of bilogical and non-bilogical evolution. Many here have already tried to disabuse you of making such comparisons but to no avail. Yesterday it was the Defining Evolution thread, today its the Synthetic Life thread and tomorrow it'll be something similar, all with the ends of somehow proving ID.

Could an intelligent designer have created the universe, all workings of life and guided its development? Yes.
Is there one scintilla of evidence for this? No.
And herein lies what I, and many others, have been trying to tell you in a varying degrees of ways. At first mostly respectfully and patiently. But as you continue this unsupported hypothesis it gets old, especially when so many logical arguments have been brought to your attention. As you can see, eventually people just say fuck it...troll.

Anyway, I think you are a smart guy, and I for one like to be challanged in my thinking. But when evidence for one side is provided continuously and none for the other then I have to wonder why the suspension of critical thinking on this one topic.

"Old beliefs die hard even when demonstrably false" - E.O. WIlson

***
edit for spelling

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
27-03-2013, 10:45 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(27-03-2013 08:44 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(26-03-2013 10:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In the defining evolution thread I replaced "selective filter" just for you Fullcircle.

I know you did and I thought we were making progress. But as you readily admit here you are continuing to espouse a congruence of bilogical and non-bilogical evolution. Many here have already tried to disabuse you of making such comparisons but to no avail. Yesterday it was the Defining Evolution thread, today its the Synthetic Life thread and tomorrow it'll be something similar, all with the ends of somehow proving ID.

Could an intelligent designer have created the universe, all workings of life and guided its development? Yes.
Is there one scintilla of evidence for this? No.
And herein lies what I, and many others, have been trying to tell you in a varying degrees of ways. At first mostly respectfully and patiently. But as you continue this unsupported hypothesis it gets old, especially when so many logical arguments have been brought to your attention. As you can see, eventually people just say fuck it...troll.

Anyway, I think you are a smart guy, and I for one like to be challanged in my thinking. But when evidence for one side is provided contiuously and none for the other then I have to wonder why the suspension of critical thinking on this one topic.

"Old beliefs die hard even when demonstrably false" - E.O. WIlson

Evolution is evolution and there really is no reason to think that biological evolution is some sort of special case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 10:48 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(27-03-2013 10:45 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(27-03-2013 08:44 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I know you did and I thought we were making progress. But as you readily admit here you are continuing to espouse a congruence of bilogical and non-bilogical evolution. Many here have already tried to disabuse you of making such comparisons but to no avail. Yesterday it was the Defining Evolution thread, today its the Synthetic Life thread and tomorrow it'll be something similar, all with the ends of somehow proving ID.

Could an intelligent designer have created the universe, all workings of life and guided its development? Yes.
Is there one scintilla of evidence for this? No.
And herein lies what I, and many others, have been trying to tell you in a varying degrees of ways. At first mostly respectfully and patiently. But as you continue this unsupported hypothesis it gets old, especially when so many logical arguments have been brought to your attention. As you can see, eventually people just say fuck it...troll.

Anyway, I think you are a smart guy, and I for one like to be challanged in my thinking. But when evidence for one side is provided contiuously and none for the other then I have to wonder why the suspension of critical thinking on this one topic.

"Old beliefs die hard even when demonstrably false" - E.O. WIlson

Evolution is evolution and there really is no reason to think that biological evolution is some sort of special case.



No, biological evolution isn't a special case - your goal-directed computer program is the special case. They are not the same.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 10:53 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(27-03-2013 10:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-03-2013 10:45 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Evolution is evolution and there really is no reason to think that biological evolution is some sort of special case.



No, biological evolution isn't a special case - your goal-directed computer program is the special case. They are not the same.

Instead of wasting our time just making the baseless claim they are not the same, how about you point out the differences.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2013, 10:56 AM
RE: Synthetic life.
(27-03-2013 10:53 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(27-03-2013 10:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, biological evolution isn't a special case - your goal-directed computer program is the special case. They are not the same.

Instead of wasting our time just making the baseless claim they are not the same, how about you point out the differences.


For the umpteenth time?

There is no evidence of the existence of any goals in biological evolution. No goals, no direction, no path, no progress; just a blind algorithm that operates in the here and now.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: