In article <e9e6p0$fqv$1@nntp.aioe.org>,

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f234f7c69c6d918989b2e@news.readfreenews.net...

In article <e9bqka$v6b$1@nntp.aioe.org>,

The computer was created

A house is created too. That doesn't mean that everything that happens
to it, or in it is the result of intelligence.

Where did I suggest otherwise?

Then why do you care that the computer was created or not. Atoms can
function like a natural nano-computer that didn't need to be created.
The point of the software was not that humans made it, or the computers
on which it ran, both of which are trivially obvious and side issues.
The point is that the predictions of evolutionary theory were confirmed.

and the software was
written by an intelligent force.

A picture of a mountain can be created by an "intelligent force", such
as
a person. Does that mean that the mountain itself, must have likewise
been created by an "intelligent force" just because somebody drew a
picture of it? Of course not. We might create a doll, which simulates
a
person, but this does not prove that people were likewise created, just
because we can create dolls. OTOH, if we can create a doll that is so
real looking that it almost looks indistinguishable from a real baby,
then we have proven that we have a very good knowledge of the biology
associated with early childhood.

The fact that pictures of mountains and dolls can be created proves
nothing
about whether mountains and people are 'created'

In other words, the fact that people(what you call "intelligent forces")
are the ones who produced a human simulator (aka a baby doll) is
irrelevant to whether the simulation confirms theories about early
childhood medicine.

by intelligence - it
neither proves it nor disproves it - all it shows is that intelligent
forces
can create things.

No. It just shows that you are clueless as to the other meaningful
effects of things in your world.

BTW, why don't you just say "people" instead of your ridiculous
"intelligent force" terminology? People created the simulation, so
stop
beating around the bush.

Clearly you understand what I am saying so what difference does it make
if I
say 'people' rather than 'intelligent forces'.

It would be fewer words and more accurate to just say "people".

(apart from it forming the
basis for your appeal to ridicule.

So now the fact that you can't use language precisely is a problem on my
part? Try again, putz.

Like your ad hominems, appeal to
ridicule does not help your argument)

It's neither one, as usual, since you don't understand either idea.

That is proof that intelligent forces can
create computers that can simulate evolutionary processes.

That's all I need. The simulation shows that the natural processes do
produce more optimal variants. We know that the natural processes do
not
require intelligence to operate. Therefore a creator was not required.

You observe that simulations need intelligence to operate, yet assume
that
natural processes don't.

It's not an assumption. We can look at a natural process in which a gene
gets selected. Nowhere is there intelligent guidance toward some new
design.
If anything, the animals involved are "intelligent forces", so the best
you could say is that they are intelligence guiding the selection. But
just to show that you don't know what you are talking about, we can
select sufficiently unaware organisms, such as fruit flies or bacteria,
which still evince evolution and natural selection.

Not proof that
an intelligent creative force is not essential.

Science is not about proof. If you concede that the simulation models
evolution then this means that real biological evolution can produce
the
novelty and optimization to environment found in many species
throughout
nature. Since we dont' have a time machine we can't "prove" that this
is
actually what took place. But it's like finding a person with the
smoking gun still in his hand. There's a pretty darn good chance that
this person is the one that shot the gun. It's the most reasonable
explanation that fits the facts, which is the way that science
operates.

What is and isn't 'reasonable' to accept is an entirely subjective
judgement.

Incorrect. What a reasonable *judgment* is, is based upon principles of
reason and logic, which are independent of mere subjectivity. You lose.
Thanks for playing. Insert coin to try again.

that
wrote the original program and designed the computer that executed
it.

That's irrelevant to the issue of evolution, but since, you ask,
every
atom and even every subatomic particle can act as a "computer" that
processes information. For all we know, these always existed in
some
form, because matter can neither be created, nor destroyed. Thus,
no
creator god is necessary or possible.

It is not irrelevant.

Sorry, but you're wrong. It's irrelevant to the issue of the function
of
the evolutionary mechanism, as I indicated above. You seem to be
obsessed with the statement of the obvious that the software had a
creator, but that doesn't mean that the natural phenomena, upon which
the
software was based, needed to have a creator. In fact, it suggests a
mechanism under which a creator would not be required to produce the
novelties and adaptations seen in the biological organisms which
experience the forces described in evolutionary theory. If nature can
already produce those changes without a creator, then why do you
propose
one?

Again - the simulation is a demonstration that an intelligent creator can
create simulations.

It is not a demonstration created for that purpose, you stupid, clueless
*****. The fact that you're too stupid to see any other purpose
or result does not mean that no other outcome obtains.

Clearly you understand what I am saying so what difference does it make if I
say 'people' rather than 'intelligent forces'.

(apart from it forming the
basis for your appeal to ridicule. Like your ad hominems, appeal to
ridicule does not help your argument)

Again - the simulation is a demonstration that an intelligent creator can
create simulations.

It poses the question "if simulations can be created
only by intelligence, could intelligence be responsible for that which it
simulates?" - It says absolutely nothing about what could have arisen
without intelligent origin.

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins

"Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly
religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe." --
Albert Einstein

"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins

"Scientists were rated as great heretics by the church, but they were truly
religious men because of their faith in the orderliness of the universe." --
Albert Einstein






Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:supib2l27p1m6feo3637cmv0fgnif6vlav@4ax.com...

On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 22:51:19 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:c7bgb2p9bu1frcgb12amiqiblarogpl3di@4ax.com...

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 23:24:53 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1152845904.319427.109200@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On 13 Jul 2006 00:38:43 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Budikka666"
<budikka1@netscape.net> in
<1152776323.800936.299230@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Matt Silberstein wrote:

On 12 Jul 2006 02:12:03 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Budikka666"
<budikka1@netscape.net> in
<1152695523.862805.234380@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:

Genetic Programming:
http://tinyurl.com/mobp7
http://genetic-programming.com/published/usnwr072798.html
Simulations:
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/whale.htm

Would you explain how the first article relates to biological
evolution.

Do you mean the article on Panda's Thumb which begins: "Genetic
Algorithms are simplified simulations of evolution that often
produce
surprising and useful answers in their own right. Creationists and
Intelligent Design proponents often criticize such algorithms for
not
generating true novelty"?

Actually I meant the second one, but either will do. Please tell me
how any of those demonstrate biological evolution. Not how it refutes
some creationist argument, but how it, as you say in the subject,
demonstrates (biological) evolution. (I am assuming you mean
biological, but perhaps not.)

Where did I use the word, anywhere, in my opening message
"biological"?

The fact is that it refutes creationist lies, which is enough by
itself. It illustrates that an entity can be arrived at that looks
designed, but in fact was not. Via evolution.

Unfortunately that 'evolutionary process' was facilitated by and
occurred
only via the creative abilities of the external intelligent forces that
wrote the original program and designed the computer that executed it.

Can you show us how the stuff acted differently due to "intelligence"?
That is, would the same system if it arose without "intelligence" have
acted differently? IOW is the evolution aspect different because
"intelligence" was involved?

The 'stuff' would not have acted at all if the intelligent force hadn't
created the computer hardware and designed and written all the processes
from the ground up.

Irrelevant. When I do an experiment dropping rocks those rocks would
not have fallen if I had not dropped them. I don't see how my
"intelligent" dropping changes how things fall and I don't see how
people setting up conditions in the test in question changes the
subsequent actions.

Of course your dropping the rocks does not change how they fall once they
have been dropped. Try watching the rocks drop without your intervening and
causing the rocks to drop. Be prepared for a long wait...

The system didn't arise without 'intelligence'; nor
would it have.

No human made system would have arisen without *human* actions. The
source of the initial set up is irrelevant to the actions that
follows.

No it isn't. It is essential otherwise the actions that follow don't follow
anything. There are no actions.

What difference is there in a creationist expecting you to
imagine a creator and offering no proof, and an evolutionist expecting you
to imagine that a program that demonstrates evolution doesn't
simultaneously
prove that an intelligent force is capable of producing things that
demonstrate evolutionary processes.

First off there is the difference between the origin of life and the
subsequent diversification of that life. Second we see that human
exist. If you are claiming that humans may have originated life on
Earth then say so. If you mean something else then don't play games
with this unobserved disembodied "intelligence".

I am asserting only that it has been proven that intelligent creative forces
can create things that simulate evolution.

I have not sugge