[_ Old Earth _] God Can Count - Can Evolution?

[Sparkey]

I am not sure what is the point here, above, but I remind you that by using numbers it is man who can model the Creation and the Natural Laws used to form it.
It is not relevent whether the Creator actually counts as those Law operate with such precision that we can number and account their activity.

My point is that everything that exists external to us is the almighty force of Reality to "whom" men must bow and from whom thyey can not escape until death do they part.

Very hair on our head can be numbered and our very eistence is controlled by a genetic encoding. This Creator does not count perhaps, but "He" performs in ways that man's Mathematical/Logical Intelligence can see his hand at work reaching solutions and producing consequences by the numbers we use.

This means that the whole Cosmos and our experiences here in this Reality are interwoven in this same web of inter-related Natural Laws that represent a concert of orchestrated harmony that defines existence.

It is like music that every beat and tone is counted out in a pefection that we can analyze mathematically, if we wish, but the song of life is played by ear.

You paint a picture of some old dude in the sky rubbing his gray beard and saying, "Hmmm.... let me think about this, since I have the ultimate understanding of math, it shouldn't be a problem for me..." Then after doing all the necessary computations, he begins his plan for reality.

No. God is bigger than you. The wisdom of the Ancient of Days is greater than us. No man can know the whole mind of God.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." - Genesis 1:1-3 KJV

Your reference to music shows the same thinking that Pythagoras had. Pythagoras believed that eating animal products was cannibalism because they might contain the trans-migrated souls of human ancestors. They didn't eat beans. 10 is a perfect number, reincarnation... blah, blah, blah.

Does this really magnify God? I think not. The very audacity of man to think that he can quantify the Creator of all the universe and contain Him symbolically. Sheesh!

Above, you reminded me that "it is man who can model the creation [of the universe] and the natural laws used to form it," -- ORLY? Show me your mathematical model then. Then demonstrate your brilliance: create something from nothing. You've got the cart in front of the horse --and you're mounted backwards. But prove me wrong in this: Speak and make it so.

 

[Sparkey]

Mathematicians tend to disagree with you, in that they believe that not only is the math restrained by the relationship of the logical connections between them, but that they feel they are discovering the new relationships that exist but have just been unknown o them prior to then.

This is to say, the mathematics are already a fixed set of relationships that exist, and math researchers are just finding more and more out about that structure.

That physical applications become apparent over time hasbeen demonstrated in many cases, such as the Boolian Algbra that was more a math game played by mathematicians before Electronics was develiped and the math explained Logic Gates and the the whole relationship between the game and the real world.

Our computers' language today is basically constructed using Boolian Algbra.

You don't know me.

I'm a retired Systems Analyst and Computer Technician; your attempt to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs fails to impress. We are just two chickens scratching in the sand. Less. In other words, mankind thinks too much of itself. Self-aggrandizement and exaggerating one's own import does not earn a greater position in heaven.

"The high and lofty one who inhabits eternity, the Holy One, says this: 'I live in that high and holy place with those whose spirits are contrite and humble. I refresh the humble and give new courage to those with repentant hearts.'
Isaiah 57:15
​

 

[Asyncritus]

You don't know me.

I'm a retired Systems Analyst and Computer Technician; your attempt to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs fails to impress. We are just two chickens scratching in the sand. Less. In other words, mankind thinks too much of itself. Self-aggrandizement and exaggerating one's own import does not earn a greater position in heaven.

"The high and lofty one who inhabits eternity, the Holy One, says this: 'I live in that high and holy place with those whose spirits are contrite and humble. I refresh the humble and give new courage to those with repentant hearts.'
Isaiah 57:15
​

SH

No-one, least of all me, is trying to circumscribe God by the use of mathematics.

As you rightly say, that is altogether foolish and hopelessly inadequate.

My point is/was that we see evidences of His handiwork everywhere in nature, and one great piece of evidence that He did it, in my view, is the mathematically precise and exact use of numbers found in very many fields of biological investigation: in this case the strict numbering that exists in the dicotyledonous and monocotyledonous plants.

Such design is quite plainly DESIGNED, and did not come about by the random process known as evolution.

As a computer man, you will know the great saying GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. So we look and we see mathematical precision and exactness before us.

What kind of program do you suppose could produce such beauty and such order? An intelligently designed one, or a random assemblage of bytes?

BTW, that is not a far-fetched analogy - because the DNA encodes (what a word to use!) a digital program which needs to be first constructed, second encoded, third copied, fourth translated and lastly, executed correctly according to the instructions.

An explosion in one of Bill Gates factories certainly couldn't produce any such thing.

But here we have Barbarian trying to sell us more snake oil and saying that the explosion was directed and the results were beauty and order, not ugliness and disorder.

Pity isn't it, that common sense and sanity have vanished from the land.

 

[cupid dave]

you must actually USE his model, in which he has enumerated 8 Intelligences.[/B]

If you want to think that there are only 7, that's fine. After all, it is only a model. But you can no longer appeal to Gardner, because your model is not in agreement with his.

I accept eight too.
You and I can agree on that, and we can hold each other to this as a basis in order to further explore this idea.

1) Id = Lucifer
2) Libido = Satan
3) Ego = Mammon
4) Anima = Devil
5) Self = Beelzebub
6) Superego = False Prophet
7) Harmony = False shepherd
8) Conscience = Good Shepherd

 

[cupid dave]

You paint a picture of some old dude in the sky rubbing his gray beard and saying, "Hmmm.... let me think about this, since I have the ultimate understanding of math, it shouldn't be a problem for me..." Then after doing all the necessary computations, he begins his plan for reality.

No. God is bigger than you. The wisdom of the Ancient of Days is greater than us. No man can know the whole mind of God.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." - Genesis 1:1-3 KJV

Your reference to music shows the same thinking that Pythagoras had. Pythagoras believed that eating animal products was cannibalism because they might contain the trans-migrated souls of human ancestors. They didn't eat beans. 10 is a perfect number, reincarnation... blah, blah, blah.

Does this really magnify God? I think not. The very audacity of man to think that he can quantify the Creator of all the universe and contain Him symbolically. Sheesh!

Above, you reminded me that "it is man who can model the creation [of the universe] and the natural laws used to form it," -- ORLY? Show me your mathematical model then. Then demonstrate your brilliance: create something from nothing. You've got the cart in front of the horse --and you're mounted backwards. But prove me wrong in this: Speak and make it so.

?
No I don't picture that.

My picture is that God is the ever unfolding force behind Reality, that Power of Changing which fathers the Truth that unfolds in His wake.

I am merely saying that mat is one of the Freudian/Jungian based Eight Intelliegences by which we manage to image this almighty God. aids humans in imaging this Force.


Gen. 1:26 And God, (Father Nature, Reality), said, Let us, (i.e., his Natural Laws, together, in pan-en-theistic expression of the Spirit of God: [Gen 1:2]), make man, (through the process of gradual evolution ending in the finished Adam i.e.; Jesus),... Let us ((i.e., his Natural Laws) make man, (as a reflection of Reality, in his mind, able, through Truth, to imminently reflect the "I am" of this existence: [John 14:6]), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly panentheistic organization): and let them, (men as the Dominant species on earth to this day), have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by cupid dave
Mathematicians tend to disagree with you, in that they believe that not only is the math restrained by the relationship of the logical connections between them, but that they feel they are discovering the new relationships that exist but have just been unknown o them prior to then.

This is to say, the mathematics are already a fixed set of relationships that exist, and math researchers are just finding more and more out about that structure.

That physical applications become apparent over time has been demonstrated in many cases, such as the Boolian Algbra that was more a math game played by mathematicians before Electronics was develiped and the math explained Logic Gates and the the whole relationship between the game and the real world.

Our computers' language today is basically constructed using Boolian Algbra.


/////

You don't know me.

I'm a retired Systems Analyst and Computer Technician; your attempt to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs fails to impress. We are just two chickens scratching in the sand. Less. In other words, mankind thinks too much of itself. Self-aggrandizement and exaggerating one's own import does not earn a greater position in heaven.

"The high and lofty one who inhabits eternity, the Holy One, says this: 'I live in that high and holy place with those whose spirits are contrite and humble. I refresh the humble and give new courage to those with repentant hearts.'
Isaiah 57:15
​

So then you agree with me about Boolian Algebra and the computer language development of this Age?

I also draw attention to the present work in Artificalntelligence, noting that comouters, by using just numbers, Base two at that, can smell, write, 'see', hear, etc.
They can actually do the same things as we do simply by numerical instruction.
It is a very good analogy that suggests God can be imaged in our mind with the help of our mathematical constructions.

Isn't it??

 

[Adam]

I accept eight too.
You and I can agree on that, and we can hold each other to this as a basis in order to further explore this idea.

1) Id = Lucifer
2) Libido = Satan
3) Ego = Mammon
4) Anima = Devil
5) Self = Beelzebub
6) Superego = False Prophet
7) Harmony = False shepherd
8) Conscience = Good Shepherd

That is not Gardner's model. It has nothing to do with the intelligences or learning styles and confuses the concepts used by Freud and Jung which are not even categorically matched with some names for the devil.

We aren't talking any type of behavioral models at this point and you certainly aren't using Gardner's, Freud's or Jung's actual work.

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance

As you're so convinced that Darwin didn't say so

Well, as you learned, Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. So you're pretty much out on the limb with your atheist bud, aren't you?

I think you'd better write Dawkins and remind him that he was WRONG then. Try doing that and see how far you'll get.

Or you guys could just see what Darwin wrote:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

This is him making a friendly nod to appease the wrath...

Sorry. Not credible. Darwin never said life began by chance. And he did say that God did it. You're just going to have to find some way to live with it.

Having spent a whole book saying the exact opposite

Show me in his book where he said life began by chance. Chapter is fine. I'll locate the page. Oh, that's right, you can't because you never read his book.

In the Descent of Man he practically advocates the genocidal elimination of the 'sub-species' on the basis of the 'survival of the fittest' doctrine he espoused and taught in this evil book.

I've read that one, too. And I know you haven't, because he deplored the abuse of primitive societies by more advanced ones. In fact:

The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

So long as you keep telling people about books you never read, you're going to be repeatedly embarrassed. Isn't it time to learn a little bit about what you're talking about?

Hitler and the rest thought this was great,

As you see, Darwin specifically condemned what Hitler advocated. And while Darwin (without the benefit of genetics) worried that some races of man would be wiped out by aggression of Europeans, later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's eugenic ideas were not only evil, but scientifically flawed.

An even bigger master of genocide, Stalin, outlawed Darwinian theory from the Soviet Union.

Dawkins, far better read than you, says that Darwin DID say that it was by chance.

Barbarian chuckles:
If so, too bad for him. He'll get no support from Darwin or evolutionary theory.

Well, aha! The first crack in the evolutionary establishment appears.

That was a couple of years after Darwin published. He and Huxley disagreed on the pace of evolution. I doubt if Dawkins really claimed Darwin said evolution is by chance.

Are you sure you don't want the wrath of the high priest descend on you?

The great thing about science is that it's essentially libertarian. There is no decider. It works by consensus.

But you have now guiltily agreed that Dawkins does say that Darwin said that chance was the thing.

Nope. That's why I said "if so." Your history here has taught me to check anything you say before I believe it.

I remind you that Dawkins is better read than you, and you should bow to his superior knowledge and acquaintance with the literature!

I remind you that Darwin didn't say what you claim Dawkins attributes to him. And unlike you, I actually read the book. See above. Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

It is essential, nay, imperative for Dawkins case that it WASN'T by chance. Unfortunately for you, Darwin did say so.

Barbarian chuckles:
See above. You've been snockered again, because you don't think for yourself.

Now here's the pot calling the kettle black! You've been backed into smuggling design (as opposed to chance) into (alleged) evolutionary processes.

As you learned earlier, it's neither design, or chance. Evolution isn't by chance, and it isn't designed. It's created.

You have done so just as your high priest does, by attributing qualities of design ability to something that clearly could not possibly possess them.

No sign of design. Just natural processes. Which, as you learned some time ago, are more efficient than design.

I could quotemine a dozen evolutionists all saying words to the effect that evolution is a chance process

I notice you tried to do that with Darwin, and got yourself embarrassed again.

Berlinski mocks this by saying that there must be a Head Monkey there making the decisions about whether to retain the letter there or not! I find that quite amusing.

Natural selection, as you learned, can make great changes by making small incremental changes. Would you like to see an example?

Mutation produces some quality which is beneficial (a highly questionable assumption, but we'll let that pass).

You've already been shown numerous examples.

Then what happens? That quality is 'selected' and remains in the population. So over a long time(Q = beneficial quality) Q1 + Q2 +Q3 + Q4.....etc all add up to new species, and ultimately new phyla such as reptiles into birds.

But you notice, 'selection' is what he says has occurred. That is an unfortunate choice of word, because it takes some form of intelligence to make the 'selection'!

No intelligence is required. Hall's bacterial, for example, evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system, by small steps from random mutations, organized by natural selection.

Now, are you Darwin's or Dawkins' disciple?

I merely read what they wrote, and see what I think makes sense. As you learned, it's a big help if you know what you're talking about. Read and learn.

They flatly contradict each other, and you would be lying to say otherwise.

Show us that.

Barbarian observes:
I haven't read much about Dawkin's views, except Goulds review of "hyperselectionism."

Perhaps you should. After all, he is the high priest.

If you consider him the high priest, then I probably wouldn't agree with him much.

Barbarian observes:
If you tossed a coin a hundred times, but only counted the heads that appeared on odd tosses, would the result be random? No, it wouldn't.

That is pure nonsense

It's mathematically demonstrable. Would you like me to show you?

Yes. Go right ahead. LK, you've had some statistical training.

Let's say that a hundred coins are tossed and they all fall into a counting machine that counts the heads and tails. But the machine has a defect; it scans the coin, but the scan that detects tails only works every odd coin.

You'll end with a non-random result, biased toward heads, but the tosses were entirely random. Surprise.

If the result is non-random, then the coin is biassed. Or the counting is biassed and unfair.

The counting is not random, and the outcome therefore is not random. How about that?

It's simple. A random process, like flipping coins or mutations, when acted upon by a non-random process like natural selection, produces a non-random result.

So NS has some form of intelligence to select the good ones.

Nope. Neither is the machine, although the maker of the machine might be. He doesn't individually move the coins, but he set up the machine to do it.

That is exactly what you're saying here. You're trying to smuggle in the Head Monkey again.

Nope. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, God can use chance to effect His will just as easily as he can use necessity.

Evolution is a random process

Barbarian chuckles:
I know you want us to believe you, but the evidence shows something quite different.

Darwin, Dawkins, Dunnett, Ruse, and I don't care to count how many others, say it is a random process.

Show us that. The Dawkins quote shows his thoughts on the origin of life, not evolution. I think you meant "Dennett", but hard to say. Anyway, checkable quotes with original sources will help your case, if they can be verified.

And in any case, you have no real evidence of beneficial mutations occurring.

Barbarian observes:
You've been shown numerous examples here. No point in denying it. Everyone knows.

Those trashy example you brought up? Everyone knows just how useless they are in producing the Cambrian explosion, and all the others that have occurred.

I'd think producing a new enzyme system in a few months would be pretty good evidence. There's no point in you denying it.

Barbarian chuckles:
The first one I showed you produced a new species. Want to see it again?

Yes.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1936.tb03204.x/pdf

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 April; 55(4): 727–733
Spontaneous origin of an incipient species in the Drosophila paulistorum complex.
T Dobzhansky and O Pavlovsky
O. gigas from O. lamarkania, by a polyploidy event.

Go right ahead, and while you're at it, show how youw speciation rates could account for the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION.

Speciation rates depend on the environment, newly evolved armored organisms suddenly had many new niches open to them and rapidly evolved. We had a smaller "Hawaiian explosion" when insects first got there and rapidly evolved to fill the many open niches. It's called "disruptive selection."

Barbarian chuckles:
No. Not stupidity. You just don't know enough about biology to understand the quotes you mine for us.

You have mined innumerable quotes of monumental irrelevancy

I'm just citing from the literature. And remember, I actually read it, so I know what it means.

the last 2 being prize examples - hoping that I and others would be overimpressed with the heavy type and citation of the references, and fearfully creep away.

Barbarian observes:
They aren't quotes. They are evidence from the literature. And they aren't overly technical or difficult. If you'd spend a little more time learning about the issue in the literature, you wouldn't be so easy to flummox.

(outburst)

Screaming is impolite.

38 Nobel Laureates: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

Sounds like chance to me!

As you just learned, a random process, plus a non-random process, is a non-random process.

Barbarian observes:
Gravity is unguided and unplanned. If a rock falls, it doesn't fall in a random direction. You made a bad assumption, and it led you to a foolish conclusion.

We are not discussing physics here

More precisely, we're discussing your confusion as to what is random and what is not.

but I again point out that when Sir Isaac Newton discovered the mathematics behind the law of gravity, he didn't immediately start prancing round shouting 'hey look, this is unguided and unplanned'.

If you think God personally intervenes to make falling objects fall...

Far from it, and you as a catholic should take the same POV.

As you know, the Church teaches that evolution, as a consquence of God's creation, is consistent with Christian faith.

What did he say?

Newton said natural forces caused gravity.

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.

Darwin thought so, too:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Do you agree that we have there a very fair description of 'by chance'? From 38 Nobel laureates?

As you learned, they didn't say evolution was by chance. They said random mutation and natural selection. Which as you now realize, is not by chance.

I really worry about those blinkers you're wearing.

Funny how folks who wear them, are never aware of it, um?

Let me show you again that they didn't say it was by chance:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

You get the impression that they're talking about CHANCE here?

As you now realize, it's the antithesis of chance.

Here's Merriam Webster to help you:
a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause

And yet, biologists are can predict the outcome of selective pressures. Dr. Hall is now even predicting the direction new forms of antibiotic resistance will take.

You are presupposing, as Dawkins so foolishly does, the presence of a Head Monkey

Barbarian observes:
Nope. Just a Creator powerful enough to create a universe in which such wonders can happen.

You've gone that far as to accept the existence of a Creator. Why not let Him do it His way?

Now when 38 Nobel Laureates who read Darwin, agree that Darwin said that it was a chance process

As you just learned, neither Darwin nor those scientists said it was a chance process. Nice try, though.

See above. And repeat after me. Slowly and carefully now:
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.

There before us is very clear evidence of design in the lilies (3's in the monocots, 4s and 5s in the dicots, and all the other carefully counted and designed structures in the living world).

As you learned from the literature I cited, it's just genetics. No counting required. Read and learn.

 

[Sparkey]

So then you agree with me about Boolian Algebra and the computer language development of this Age?

I also draw attention to the present work in Artificalntelligence, noting that comouters, by using just numbers, Base two at that, can smell, write, 'see', hear, etc.
They can actually do the same things as we do simply by numerical instruction.
It is a very good analogy that suggests God can be imaged in our mind with the help of our mathematical constructions.

Isn't it??

No. The analogy suggests that man is god.

 

[Sparkey]

SH

No-one, least of all me, is trying to circumscribe God by the use of mathematics.

As you rightly say, that is altogether foolish and hopelessly inadequate.

My point is/was that we see evidences of His handiwork everywhere in nature, and one great piece of evidence that He did it, in my view, is the mathematically precise and exact use of numbers found in very many fields of biological investigation: in this case the strict numbering that exists in the dicotyledonous and monocotyledonous plants.

Such design is quite plainly DESIGNED, and did not come about by the random process known as evolution.

As a computer man, you will know the great saying GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. So we look and we see mathematical precision and exactness before us.

What kind of program do you suppose could produce such beauty and such order? An intelligently designed one, or a random assemblage of bytes?

BTW, that is not a far-fetched analogy - because the DNA encodes (what a word to use!) a digital program which needs to be first constructed, second encoded, third copied, fourth translated and lastly, executed correctly according to the instructions.

An explosion in one of Bill Gates factories certainly couldn't produce any such thing.

But here we have Barbarian trying to sell us more snake oil and saying that the explosion was directed and the results were beauty and order, not ugliness and disorder.

Pity isn't it, that common sense and sanity have vanished from the land.

All of creation declares God's glory. I'm very much with you there. And I'm not saying that you're doing this but some seek to elevate and proclaim our awareness of creation in order to enthrone themselves. "I think, therefore I am." These are supplanters. They follow their father, the devil. There is only one who rightly declares, "I am."

We need to repent, and be changed from glory to Glory by the grace of God, not try to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps (love that image) and proclaim our glory.

 

[cupid dave]

As a computer man, you will know the great saying GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. So we look and we see mathematical precision and exactness before us..

This is a very imoportant point about how we think, this Garbage in, Garbage out.

In the real world, especially in more crude times and long before our own complex ivilization, the mind had to survey theenvironemnt and make very quick survival evaluations in regard as to how to react.
For the human mind to be any good as a surviival tool, it jad to ast a net over the whole of the sensory informationcoming in, quickly organize it in a specific way in order to use the Data effecively in a response.
What must have developed was the ability to use Pattern Discernment that was repetitious in its organizational structure.

There is evidence today that this happens.

Blind people develop intuitive abilities to "visualize" things from what they hear, and/or smell or taste, for intance.
Each sense is essentially creating a portion of the whole picture of some event, but the missing visuals are supplied even though they are blind, simply because the other independent thinking areas of the cortex have become aware of what the whole usually is when these other sense provide this same data.

Its like we smell steak cooking, and hear the sizzle, and the brain fills in the visual.
We "see' steak.

This is to further imply that the mind has developed a Pattern to the temple ofour thinking which is a fixed organizational pattern we automatically and uniuversally throw over the events under consideration.
By such a device, Organization in, Orgnization out.

This is the basis for defining a hypothesis for the long missing Urim and Thummim mentioned in Ex 28:30, a device which I believe was a geometric model for this pattern of thinking.


Its geometry took the fom o a five piece solid Cube which comes apart and provides a numerical Group Theory corresponding to the way we process thoughts about anything and everything.
We do it subconsciously, and we are not aware of this.


At the end of her book concerned with teaching to both sides of the brain, the author tells us that she became aware of an organizational pattern that she herself had been using as she "struggled to bring all the parts of what she had stated previously together."
In what she called a mandala, she saw attempted to draw whatbshe had been calling a Mind Map, the exact same pattern on what I am propsoing occurred to her.
It was the pictorial sum of what she had been trying to say semantically, as if a picture was worth the thosands of words she had written:

 

[Adam]

This is a very imoportant point about how we think, this Garbage in, Garbage out.

In the real world, especially in more crude times and long before our own complex ivilization, the mind had to survey theenvironemnt and make very quick survival evaluations in regard as to how to react.
For the human mind to be any good as a surviival tool, it jad to ast a net over the whole of the sensory informationcoming in, quickly organize it in a specific way in order to use the Data effecively in a response.
What must have developed was the ability to use Pattern Discernment that was repetitious in its organizational structure.

There is evidence today that this happens.

Blind people develop intuitive abilities to "visualize" things from what they hear, and/or smell or taste, for intance.
Each sense is essentially creating a portion of the whole picture of some event, but the missing visuals are supplied even though they are blind, simply because the other independent thinking areas of the cortex have become aware of what the whole usually is when these other sense provide this same data.

Its like we smell steak cooking, and hear the sizzle, and the brain fills in the visual.
We "see' steak.

This is to further imply that the mind has developed a Pattern to the temple ofour thinking which is a fixed organizational pattern we automatically and uniuversally throw over the events under consideration.
By such a device, Organization in, Orgnization out.

This is the basis for defining a hypothesis for the long missing Urim and Thummim mentioned in Ex 28:30, a device which I believe was a geometric model for this pattern of thinking.


Its geometry took the fom o a five piece solid Cube which comes apart and provides a numerical Group Theory corresponding to the way we process thoughts about anything and everything.
We do it subconsciously, and we are not aware of this.


At the end of her book concerned with teaching to both sides of the brain, the author tells us that she became aware of an organizational pattern that she herself had been using as she "struggled to bring all the parts of what she had stated previously together."
In what she called a mandala, she saw attempted to draw whatbshe had been calling a Mind Map, the exact same pattern on what I am propsoing occurred to her.
It was the pictorial sum of what she had been trying to say semantically, as if a picture was worth the thosands of words she had written:

Again you are appealing to people's work that do not support what you claim.

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by cupid dave
So then you agree with me about Boolian Algebra and the computer language development of this Age?

I also draw attention to the present work in Artificalntelligence, noting that comouters, by using just numbers, Base two at that, can smell, write, 'see', hear, etc.
They can actually do the same things as we do simply by numerical instruction.
It is a very good analogy that suggests God can be imaged in our mind with the help of our mathematical constructions.

Isn't it??


/////////



No. The analogy suggests that man is god.

Sons-of-God...

The analogy suggests that we have the power to become the sons of God in that what we think is sired by imaging the ever unfolding Reality by using our intelligence.

This statement is the basis for threadingthe series of insights made by oithers such as Freud, Jung, Howard Gardner, Linda Williams who discovered the mandala or pattern to which I have referred, and many other indeas especially to include Guilford who made a geometric Model of Intelligence whuch has been used in developing ideas about Artifical Intelligence.

This is very interesting because from the various geometries described in the Book of Exodus and many other passages throughout scripture a hypothesis can be developed which describes the appearance of the long lost and never really defined tool by which the Torah said men could actually communicate with God directly in regard to divining his will.

The model which has been developed looks similar to Guilford's cube, but is formed by using five geometric solids that fit together:

 

[Adam]

Guilford was a quack.

I don't see what his work has to do with other geometric shapes or what either has to do with the urim and thummim.

 

[Sparkey]

Guilford was a quack.

I don't see what his work has to do with other geometric shapes or what either has to do with the urim and thummim.

It's part of a deception, "In the day you eat thereof ye shall be as god, knowing..."

But the problem is: knowledge does not save.

 

[Asyncritus]

Reply to Barbarian

Darwin's answer, is by gradual, step-by-step transformations from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance

As you're so convinced that Darwin didn't say so
Well, as you learned, Darwin attributed the origin of life to God. So you're pretty much out on the limb with your atheist bud, aren't you?

Hold hard there pal. You've just ducked the question. Again.

Darwin may have said that God created life, but that is not what we're talking about here. I've been longing for the opportunity to say this to an evolutionist, and now it's here!

Abiogenesis and evolution ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

You're reading with your favourite rose-coloured blinkers on if you missed that.

Now then. Dawkins says that Darwin is talking about evolution, from simple beginnings BY CHANCE:

from simple beginnings, from primordial entities sufficiently simple to have come into existence by chance.

Again:

I think you'd better write Dawkins and remind him that he was WRONG then. Try doing that and see how far you'll get.
Or you guys could just see what Darwin wrote:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of The Origin of Species

Once more into the breach dear friends: Abiogenesis is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!! Are you listening? I doubt it, but I thought I'd ask anyway...

This is him making a friendly nod to appease the wrath...

Sorry. Not credible. Darwin never said life began by chance. And he did say that God did it.

You paying attention? Abiogenesis is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!! That is NOT what we're discussing!!!

You're just going to have to find some way to live with it.

You failed again. Now admit it, because, all together now: Abiogenesis is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!!

Having spent a whole book saying the exact opposite
Show me in his book where he said life began by chance. Chapter is fine. I'll locate the page. Oh, that's right, you can't because you never read his book.

Really? You’ve read it, and read it wrong! Pretty bad, that, you know.

Are you listening? Abiogenesis is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!!

So long as you keep telling people about books you never read, you're going to be repeatedly embarrassed. Isn't it time to learn a little bit about what you're talking about?

So long as you keep reading books and not understanding what you’re reading, just so long will you be talking nonsense.

Hitler and the rest thought this was great,

As you see, Darwin specifically condemned what Hitler advocated. And while Darwin (without the benefit of genetics) worried that some races of man would be wiped out by aggression of Europeans, later Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that Hitler's eugenic ideas were not only evil, but scientifically flawed.

An even bigger master of genocide, Stalin, outlawed Darwinian theory from the Soviet Union.

I don’t want to go down this road, but trust me, social Darwinism isn’t called that for nothing, is it!

Dawkins, far better read than you, says that Darwin DID say that it was by chance.

Barbarian chuckles:
If so, too bad for him. He'll get no support from Darwin or evolutionary theory.

You misread it, remember! I’d change that record if I were you.

Well, aha! The first crack in the evolutionary establishment appears.

That was a couple of years after Darwin published. He and Huxley disagreed on the pace of evolution. I doubt if Dawkins really claimed Darwin said evolution is by chance.

You want to do a poll of everybody’s understanding of that quote I put up by Dawkins?

Are you sure you don't want the wrath of the high priest descend on you?

The great thing about science is that it's essentially libertarian. There is no decider. It works by consensus.

Dream on pal. Dream on. Remember how the whole biological establishment swallowed Piltdown hook, line and sinker? And how they all thought the coelacanth was THE great intermediate between fish and amphibians? Consensus indeed! Wrong, all wrong.

But you have now guiltily agreed that Dawkins does say that Darwin said that chance was the thing.

Nope. That's why I said "if so." Your history here has taught me to check anything you say before I believe it.

Check again. Write Dawkins. But admit that the truth is as I said it.

I remind you that Dawkins is better read than you, and you should bow to his superior knowledge and acquaintance with the literature!

I remind you that Darwin didn't say what you claim Dawkins attributes to him. And unlike you, I actually read the book. See above. Darwin attributed the origin of life to God.

All together now, boys: Abiogenesis is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!!

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

It is essential, nay, imperative for Dawkins case

that it WASN'T by chance. Unfortunately for you, Darwin did say so.

[/FONT]

Barbarian chuckles:
See above. You've been snockered again, because you don't think for yourself.

Snookered is the word you're looking for.

This refrain is getting a bit tiring – but, once more lads, his hearing aid isn’t working too well: Abiogenesis is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!!

Now here's the pot calling the kettle black! You've been backed into smuggling design (as opposed to chance) into (alleged) evolutionary processes.

As you learned earlier, it's neither design, or chance. Evolution isn't by chance, and it isn't designed. It's created.

Let’s have a quote from the scientific literature that says so.

You have done so just as your high priest does, by attributing qualities of design ability to something that clearly could not possibly possess them.

No sign of design. Just natural processes. Which, as you learned some time ago, are more efficient than design
I could quotemine a dozen evolutionists all saying words to the effect that evolution is a chance process

I notice you tried to do that with Darwin, and got yourself embarrassed again. .

Do we need to do this again? Lads? All together: : Abiogenesis is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!!

Berlinski mocks this by saying that there must be a Head Monkey there making the decisions about whether to retain the letter there or not! I find that quite amusing.

Natural selection, as you learned, can make great changes by making small incremental changes. Would you like to see an example?

If there was any such thing, you’d have brought it up already. There isn’t, so what are you going to do about it?
Remember, I’m looking for something that will produce the Cambrian explosion of species, genera, etc etc. So none of these piddling little insignificant nonsenses which are meaningless in the great scheme of things, please. Something SIGNIFICANT.

Mutation produces some quality which is beneficial (a highly questionable assumption, but we'll let that pass).

You've already been shown numerous examples.

In your dreams.

Then what happens? That quality is 'selected' and remains in the population. So over a long time(Q = beneficial quality) Q1 + Q2 +Q3 + Q4.....etc all add up to new species, and ultimately new phyla such as reptiles into birds.

But you notice, 'selection' is what he says has occurred. That is an unfortunate choice of word, because it takes some form of intelligence to make the 'selection'!

No intelligence is required. Hall's bacterial, for example, evolved a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system, by small steps from random mutations, organized by natural selection.

And this magnificent example produced which new genus or species?

Now, are you Darwin's or Dawkins' disciple?

I merely read what they wrote, and see what I think makes sense. As you learned, it's a big help if you know what you're talking about. Read and learn.

Well if you could possibly think that abiogenesis is evolution, then it’s pretty obvious, as your evolutionary friends will surely tell you, that you may read, but you’re wasting time doing so. Learn to spell, is probably good advice here.

They flatly contradict each other, and you would be lying to say otherwise.

Show us that.

See above.

Barbarian observes:
If you tossed a coin a hundred times, but only counted the heads that appeared on odd tosses, would the result be random? No, it wouldn't.

That is pure nonsense
It's mathematically demonstrable. Would you like me to show you?

Yes. Go right ahead. LK, you've had some statistical training.

Let's say that a hundred coins are tossed and they all fall into a counting machine that counts the heads and tails. But the machine has a defect; it scans the coin, but the scan that detects tails only works every odd coin.

You'll end with a non-random result, biased toward heads, but the tosses were entirely random. Surprise.

Let’s examine that with some intellectual rigour, shall we?
We have a machine. Intelligently designed and constructed. Natural selection is neither.

The machine is defective. NS, according to you, works perfectly.

We have coins, intelligently designed, with recognisable, distinct patterns, which could not be produced by chance. So much for evolution.

If the result is non-random, then the coin is biassed. Or the counting is biassed and unfair.

The counting is not random, and the outcome therefore is not random. How about that?

As you admitted, the counting is biased and unfair. Faulty is the proper description. The dice are loaded. I fail to see any non-random process here. Everything in it is designed, and works to produce a predictable result.

If you went to a gaming table with such dice, you’d be shot.

It's simple. A random process, like flipping coins or mutations, when acted upon by a non-random process like natural selection, produces a non-random result.

You have smuggled in the Head Monkey again. Not allowed.

 

[Grazer]

Just re-post one of the definitions I put earlier:

Origin of life (chemical evolution). The theory of evolution is only an explanation for the development of life from other life. How life began in the first place is a different question, but people have proposed somewhat similar theories (the technical term is abiogenesis) of how that happened. That is an area where there is much room for doubt; some people see it as an insurmountable problem, while others think science is coming closer to good explanations. If you want to question this, you probably shouldn’t use the word “evolution” – use some other word like abiogenesis, because this is not what the scientific community typically means by evolution

So what are we arguing in this thread? That evolution alone is an insufficient explanation for the origins of life? Didn't Darwin himself acknowledge this?

 

[Asyncritus]

So NS has some form of intelligence to select the good ones.

Nope. Neither is the machine, although the maker of the machine might be. He doesn't individually move the coins, but he set up the machine to do it.

You have moved so far from what evolution is alleged to do, that it is out of sight. Why are you still supporting it?
1 You have admitted a Creator. Dawkins and the others would have you shot.
2 You are admitting that there is intelligence involved in the process – and that is anathema to the genuine evolutionists, therefore, you are not one of them.
3 Therefore, you are a creationist, not an evolutionist: because you cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time.

That is exactly what you're saying here. You're trying to smuggle in the Head Monkey again.

Nope. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, God can use chance to effect His will just as easily as he can use necessity.

I couldn’t care less what Aquinas said. I’ve never seen his name in any of the scientific literature I’ve read.
Evolution is a random process

Darwin, Dawkins, Dunnett, Ruse, and I don't care to count how many others, say it is a random process.

Show us that. The Dawkins quote shows his thoughts on the origin of life, not evolution. I think you meant "Dennett", but hard to say. Anyway, checkable quotes with original sources will help your case, if they can be verified.

That has already been done. Type it into google, and you’ll certainly find it.

And in any case, you have no real evidence of beneficial mutations occurring.

Barbarian observes:
You've been shown numerous examples here. No point in denying it. Everyone knows.

I’ve never seen one acceptable example which could conceivably generate the Cambrian explosion or teeny part of it. You really have to do better than these pathetic, fiddling pieces of evolutionary wishful thinking. Something SIGNIFICANT. Remember that?

Those trashy example you brought up? Everyone knows just how useless they are in producing the Cambrian explosion, and all the others that have occurred.

I'd think producing a new enzyme system in a few months would be pretty good evidence. There's no point in you denying it.

It may be a good example of producing a new enzyme system, I wouldn’t know or care. What I do know is that it will never produce a new species, genus or any higher taxon. Unless you’ve proof to the contrary?

Barbarian chuckles:
The first one I showed you produced a new species. Want to see it again?Yes.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....tb03204.x/pdf

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1966 April; 55(4): 727–733
Spontaneous origin of an incipient species in the Drosophila paulistorum complex.
T Dobzhansky and O Pavlovsky
O. gigas from O. lamarkania, by a polyploidy event.

Heh heh heh! You missed something, didn’t you? You do have a severe reading and comprehension problem when you’ve got those rose-coloured glasses on.

Can you tell us what INCIPIENT means? Go on. Have a shot.

Go right ahead, and while you're at it, show how your speciation rates could account for the CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION.

Speciation rates depend on the environment, newly evolved armored organisms suddenly had many new niches open to them and rapidly evolved. We had a smaller "Hawaiian explosion" when insects first got there and rapidly evolved to fill the many open niches. It's called "disruptive selection."

[FONT=&quot]Nice try, but you’ve ducked again. Take the fastest known rate of speciation you can dredge up, and show that in a few million years you could produce the number of new phyla, etc visible in the Cambrian. I said ‘few’ million, because Gould thinks the Cambrian was only 5 or so million years long – which makes his and your problems immensely more dangerous.

[/FONT]

 

[Asyncritus]

[FONT=&quot]

Barbarian chuckles:
No. Not stupidity. You just don't know enough about biology to understand the quotes you mine for us.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You have mined innumerable quotes of monumental irrelevancy
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I'm just citing from the literature. And remember, I actually read it, so I know what it means.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Like ABIOGENESIS being the same as EVOLUTION? Heh heh heh!
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

the last 2 being prize examples - hoping that I and others would be overimpressed with the heavy type and citation of the references, and fearfully creep away.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Barbarian observes:
They aren't quotes. They are evidence from the literature. And they aren't overly technical or difficult. If you'd spend a little more time learning about the issue in the literature, you wouldn't be so easy to flummox.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Like ABIOGENESIS being the same as EVOLUTION? Heh heh heh!
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

38 Nobel Laureates:

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/darwin.htm[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."[/FONT]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Sounds like chance to me!
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]As you just learned, a random process, plus a non-random process, is a non-random process.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I really think a course in basic English is called for here.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Unguided, unplanned, random are all words used of chance occurrences. You just can’t learn, can you? Go look them up in some dictionary and bring them here so we can judge just how feeble your understanding of them really is.

Barbarian observes:
Gravity is unguided and unplanned. If a rock falls, it doesn't fall in a random direction. You made a bad assumption, and it led you to a foolish conclusion. .

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but the law of gravity is in no way unguided and unplanned. Newton says so, and has the maths to prove it. Go read the Principia if your intellect can stand it.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]So your argument falls flat on its face, on the ground – obeying the Laws of Gravity and Lack of Common Sense.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

We are not discussing physics here

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]More precisely, we're discussing your confusion as to what is random and what is not.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Produce a reputable definition.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

but I again point out that when Sir Isaac Newton discovered the mathematics behind the law of gravity, he didn't immediately start prancing round shouting 'hey look, this is unguided and unplanned'.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you think God personally intervenes to make falling objects fall...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Off topic.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

Far from it, and you as a catholic should take the same POV.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]As you know, the Church teaches that evolution, as a consquence of God's creation, is consistent with Christian faith.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yeah. And it teaches that the wafer literally turns into something else, and that the pope is the vicar of Christ on the earth. You happy with those scientific statements?

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

What did he say?

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Newton said natural forces caused gravity. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Go read some of his work and stop spouting nonsense willya?
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

He said:
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Darwin thought so, too:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Abiogenesis is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!![/FONT]