Creationism, fact or fiction? - Page 6 | Realm of Thought | PinoyExchange

X

Page 6 of 12 First ... 5 6 7 ... Last
Results 101 to 120 of 223
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by easter
    I never avoid questions essex. Furthermore, I am not so much in the business of having the last word in every debate. As long as I have presented my points that is enough. If it convinces you then good and if not then I pray that God will do the rest.

    Well I wasn't implying you were avoiding them easter, it was simply a figure of speech...

    What if your points were proven to be false? Won't you be the least bit curious about the real truth?

    Anyway, I look forward to your response from my previous posts.

  2. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie
    Brainwhat?
    Brainwashed: "subjected to intensive forced indoctrination resulting in the rejection of old beliefs and acceptance of new ones" ....hello

  3. #103
    ooohhhh! can i have one of those?
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaywalker

    a.)
    / / / /
    / / / /
    / / / /
    b.)
    - -//\\ - - ll\\ - - //ll
    - //__\\ - ll \\ - // -ll
    //- - - \\ -ll -\\// - ll
    We know that letter a is ordered since the characters are laid out in a predictable pattern. Such patterns occur naturally. Letter b however seems designed. Most often we perceive something as designed if it conveys meaning. To someone who can’t read roman alphabets, letter b is just an ordered collection of characters arranged in straight lines and diagonals. To us however we know it reads AM and therefore there is a high probability that it was purposely arranged that way. Unfortunately some people extend this interpretation of meaning to objects that have no objective meaning –they look at the sunset and they see some sort of higher purpose or something like that. And then god enters the picture
    I agree that both of them are ordered. But as Ischarmoochie said, the no. of steps to describe pattern (a) is very small compared to that of pattern (b). Regarding the sunset illustration, it is still debatable if it indeed has no objective meaning.

    Nobody is arguing against the complexity of DNA.
    Thank you. At least we agree that the DNA is complex.

    trypho you took IT, you probably know that it’s extremely improbable to generate even a simple working program by randomly generating characters. Analogously it’s also near-impossible to generate a complete DNA string by chance alone (at least with our current understanding of how things work). However if instead of single characters we generate random words then your chances improve a bit. And if instead of single words you generate chunks of code then your chances improve even more.
    I’m not making specific suggestions on how DNA could have formed I’m merely stating what evolution has been suggesting ever since it was first introduced but seems to just be flying over the heads of lesser theists. Complex things gradually arise from more and more simple things. Nobody is saying that atoms spontaneously combined and formed the first cell as we know cells to be or that sometime ago a lungfish gave birth to a frog….
    Are you trying to argue that just because the chance for each successive step is high then the overall chance must be high too? I say that such inference is based on faith and not science. Suppose we are to consider the chances of an untrained rat successfully getting out of a maze. Let's say that the rat would have to correctly pass 100 gates/doors successively to be able to go to the exit. Of course, when the rat is on the 50th gate, the chance of getting through the 51st gate is relatively high, and when the rat is on the 51st gate, the chance of getting through the 52nd is also comparatively high. But does that mean that the chance of getting from the 1st to the 100th gate is high too? "Gradual" or not, the probability is still the same.

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie
    neural networks are examples of complex systems which are made up of simple "neurons." their complexity comes not from any outside interference, but from the intereactions between the simple processes involved in its function. it is able to have specificity since it can "learn" by reinforcing the connections between interactions which are often used, and it can self-organize by taking into account information feedback. complexity is as much a part of nature as simplicity for the sole reason that simplicity interacting with itself is what complexity is all about.
    I did a study (during college) about designing Neural Networks. I implemented different NN architectures using JAVA and tried to see which architecture best solves the problem at hand. (The problem was character recognition). Given the right architecture or structure, it is true that the Neural Network can "learn" or "self-organize" by reinforcing the connections based on the information feedback. But when the Network (no. of layers, no. of neurons, function used etc.) is incorrectly DESIGNED, the network never learns a thing.

  6. #106
    i roared and i rampaged
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Metro_Manila
    ^ Aside from the correctness of a given number of neurons and number of layers, we have to take into account the number of layers and the number of neurons that will communicate in each layer. The more the layers, the more it becomes complicated

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by trypho
    I did a study (during college) about designing Neural Networks. I implemented different NN architectures using JAVA and tried to see which architecture best solves the problem at hand. (The problem was character recognition). Given the right architecture or structure, it is true that the Neural Network can "learn" or "self-organize" by reinforcing the connections based on the information feedback. But when the Network (no. of layers, no. of neurons, function used etc.) is incorrectly DESIGNED, the network never learns a thing.
    i'm not really well versed in the technical aspects of designing neural networks, although i am quite familiar with the concept behind them. from what i've read, neural networks can learn or self-organize based not only on information feedback, but also on live input and stored memory depending on the structure of its virutal neurons. since parallel processing depends mainly on the inherent complexity of the neural network, how the neurons interact with each other would naturally have an effect on the capability of the network to assimilate information given to it. have you tried experimenting with layers?
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  8. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by jeune_fille
    ^ Aside from the correctness of a given number of neurons and number of layers, we have to take into account the number of layers and the number of neurons that will communicate in each layer. The more the layers, the more it becomes complicated
    the correct term whould be "complex"
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  9. #109
    i roared and i rampaged
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Metro_Manila
    Quote Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie
    the correct term whould be "complex"
    Thanks! By the way you are absent yesterday. I've posted a question on the Metaphysics thread

  10. #110
    sorry, had to attend to a class.
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  11. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie
    i'm not really well versed in the technical aspects of designing neural networks, although i am quite familiar with the concept behind them. from what i've read, neural networks can learn or self-organize based not only on information feedback, but also on live input and stored memory depending on the structure of its virutal neurons. since parallel processing depends mainly on the inherent complexity of the neural network, how the neurons interact with each other would naturally have an effect on the capability of the network to assimilate information given to it. have you tried experimenting with layers?
    Yes, I have tried experimenting with layers. In my study, I tried changing the no. of layers for a Multi-Layered Perceptron Network.

    Aside from the no. of layers, there are other Design considerations for Back-Propagation Learning. Some of these are:

    - the initial weight given to each connection
    - learning rate
    - batch or individual update of connection
    - activation function to use
    - local minima avoidance
    - no. of units per layer
    - no. of hidden units

    Yes, I agree that NNs learn based not only on information feedback. The kind of input, the no. of sample input and the weights stored in each connection are also important to learning. One of the reasons lower species find it difficult to learn is because of the specific no. of neurons present in their nervous system. No matter how much live input we feed to them, the capacity of their brain is limited and therefore cannot learn as much as we can.

    Of course, there are still much that man has to learn about neural network and learning. Personally though, I think that it is very difficult to attribute the above kind of design decisions to chance.

    Maybe, there will come a time when we can create more "intelligent" machines. I just hope the robots will recognize their intelligent creators.

  12. #112
    Yes - nee
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Line 34 Col 45
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    Blowing into certain pipes produce the sound "tu"...if you hear that sound, what information do you obtain from it?
    A "tu" sound...
    If you were to ask me how I would handle or process the said "tu" sound would have to depend on other factors aside from the "tu" sound...

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordecai
    Between my evidence versus your prejudiced ranting? It is quite obvious who is blindly following his (atheistic) ideology. At least mine looks like and IS scientific.
    God created everything is scientific? God created everything is scientific proof that God created everything which proves therefore that God created everything?

    Using God as a butt-plug for things you don't understand is not scientific evidence.

  14. #114
    ...just because
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Metro Manila
    ^...according to him, it IS.

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Ishcaramoochie
    ooohhhh! can i have one of those?
    What? A ‘brainwash’? Sure just contact Mordecai and I'm sure he'll be more than willing to give you a good serving of ‘mental zonrox’


    Quote Originally Posted by trypho
    I agree that both of them are ordered. But as Ischarmoochie said, the no. of steps to describe pattern (a) is very small compared to that of pattern (b). Regarding the sunset illustration, it is still debatable if it indeed has no objective meaning.
    If we are going to define the level of information as the compressibility of information then a random string of characters should contain more information than an ordered set since there is no pattern to base a simplification upon but I think everyone would agree that randomness is not indicative of design. That’s problematic since Mordecai equates the level of information with design
    I don’t know if you brought up information entropy just to say what you think information is or whether you’re going to use it as argument for design
    -if it is the latter then I’d like to know whether you define ‘design’ as inversely proportional to the information entropy or directly proportional to it. If it is inversely proportional (correct me if I’m wrong) then pattern (a) should look more ‘designed’ than pattern (b) but obviously it does not. If it is directly proportional then pattern (b) should look more designed than pattern (a) –consistent with how we view the two patterns. But using the same argument would lead us back to the same problem above. A random string of characters should look more designed than the two patterns.
    -If not, then I’d like to know if you think design is reducible to a mathematical formula. And if you do what would the formula be? How would you mathematically differentiate between mere order and design?


    Are you trying to argue that just because the chance for each successive step is high then the overall chance must be high too? I say that such inference is based on faith and not science. Suppose we are to consider the chances of an untrained rat successfully getting out of a maze. Let's say that the rat would have to correctly pass 100 gates/doors successively to be able to go to the exit. Of course, when the rat is on the 50th gate, the chance of getting through the 51st gate is relatively high, and when the rat is on the 51st gate, the chance of getting through the 52nd is also comparatively high. But does that mean that the chance of getting from the 1st to the 100th gate is high too? "Gradual" or not, the probability is still the same.
    The difference between my computer program analogy and your mouse in a maze analogy is that my model reaches its goal through gradual successive steps while your model is just a one step solution. If we were to make your model equivalent to mine, everytime your mouse goes through the maze again it would have to skip the gates that it got “right”. If the mouse wouldn’t have to retry everything from the bottom up the chances that it would complete the maze (even if the mouse has no faculties for retaining memory) would go progressively higher after every try

    There was an experiment before by Richard Dawkins(author of the blind watchmaker) wherein he tried to make a program generate a line from hamlet “Methinks it is a weasel” by generating random sequences of characters. The estimate on how long it would take for the computer to produce the string was a million million million million million years. (27^28 possible combinations) Needless to say generating the string in a single step is impossible. However the experiment is not comparable to the evolutionary model…
    The aforementioned experiment was meant as a caricature for how creationists view evolution. Dawkins presented a second experiment in which instead of regenerating a whole string every time, combinations of characters which closely matched the line from hamlet were kept as they were and were reused after every successive regeneration. After just 43 generations and about half an hour the exact line has been generated

    Our DNA is not a complete rewrite compared to the DNA of a chimp or even a mouse. Just relatively minor misspellings which just hammers the point that Human DNA was not made from the ground up as it is. It evolved from DNAs of other organisms

    There’s a difference between a couple of coins tossed in the air organizing themselves into a pattern resembling your initials after falling down and molecules organizing themselves through chemical reactions. The latter doesn’t depend on probability to form a complex pattern. It is part of the way nature works. There are such relatively feasible chemical explanations for how the first cell may have been produced
    Mordecai may argue that the pattern resembling your initials contains ‘specific information’. Of course we have to define if specificity can exist if the object the ‘information’ is specifically intended for doesn’t exist yet. If no one on earth can read and write in english then the text in this entire thread is no different from a random generation of roman characters. I say the probability of generating any group of characters is always 100 percent.


    Quote Originally Posted by crazy legs
    God created everything is scientific? God created everything is scientific proof that God created everything which proves therefore that God created everything?
    lol

  16. #116
    carpet-bombing
    "With great looks comes great responsibility"

  17. #117

  18. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Ischaramoochie
    on one hand, i shall not argue with you regarding specificity, since purpose is essentially subjective.
    Subjective? That’s why its specified, so it wouldn’t be subjective. The specified and complex information in the DNA code has a clear discernible purpose: construction, correction, and maintenance of an organism. Ain’t nothing subjective about that.

    it seems that you are begging the question here. of course patterns in nature would not be observed to have complexity since patterns are essentially simple. however, this does not mean that something complex cannot arise from nature. complexity is an emergent property of a system which cannot be traced to any of its components. for example, a wave is an emergent property that cannot be traced to any one particle which makes it manifest. in the same manner, the properties of water cannot be found in either hydrogen and oxygen gas. however, if we take away the waving particles or either gas, we take away the wave or water itself.
    I am not disputing that nature can produce something complex. I am arguing from the conjunction that information that is BOTH specified and complex can only come from an intelligent source.

    now, your second argument regarding information is an inductive generalization and a weak one at that. even if all complex and specified information observed arises from an intelligent source (which is false if you are aware of chaos theory and connectionism), it does not necessarily mean that all complex and specified information would arise from an intelligent source external to the system.
    What system? We’re talking about information here. We’re talking about the DNA molecules of living cells which happen to have the highest information density known to man. And specified and complex information like that cannot come from itself. Information like that (which contains statistical data, syntax, and semantics) is always traceable to a mental source.

    And chaos theory is no help to you Mooch, such ordered patterns in ‘chaos’ is fleeting and simple. They are simply repetitive structures that require very little information to describe them. The information found therein is intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the matter involved, it doesn’t need extra ‘programming’. OTOH, living things are truly complex and information-bearing, whose properties are neither intrinsic to the physics and chemistry of the substances that compose them, rather they require the pre-programmed machinery of the cell. Such programming must’ve originated from intelligence since natural processes do NOT write programs.

    neural networks are examples of complex systems which are made up of simple "neurons." their complexity comes not from any outside interference, but from the intereactions between the simple processes involved in its function. it is able to have specificity since it can "learn" by reinforcing the connections between interactions which are often used, and it can self-organize by taking into account information feedback. complexity is as much a part of nature as simplicity for the sole reason that simplicity interacting with itself is what complexity is all about.
    As Trypho has been pointing out, as it is (artificial) neural networks are already difficult using intelligence to design it, how much more for the neural networks of living beings especially if we relied on the random processes that evolution is built upon? It simply stretches credulity to believe so, and anyone who believes that exercises more faith than the religious.

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by jeune_fille
    Worst analogy i've ever heard.

    Ur argument:
    1) Information can only be created by an intelligent being.
    2) Nature can only produce patterns (e.g. ABABABABA), not information (e.g. "To be or not to be, that is the question").
    3) Biological systems in nature function because information is present.
    4) Therefore, these information-dependent biological systems must've been created by an intelligent being or creator.

    Best Example of Information in Nature - DNA
    The nucleotide sequences in the coding regions of DNA have, by all accounts, a high information content--that is, they are both highly specified and complex, just like meaningful English sentences or functional lines of code in computer software.

    *here you are trying to point out that things are created by super being which is your GOD for that matter.

    My argument: An intelligent being (GOD) can be created by another intelligent being (men)
    Thus, logical to say that the super being is perhaps created by men.

    Your argument: see above post

    My argument: mother of designer->designer->rizal's monument
    The fact that rizal's monument cannot rationalize is a substantial ground that you cannot use this analogy. Rizal's monument is not a thinking being, it cannot be curious if he was created by something. That's not the case with us men

    man->GOD->man
    You’re missing the point. Please answer the following honestly.

    Does the Rizal Monument look like it had a designer to you? If yes, why does it look like it had a designer?

    Your honest answer to these will help in our discussion.

    Best regards.

  20. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by gakutokamui
    the key words here are "can ONLY be explained". you reinforce this with this from your previous post.

    if we expand your argument about information, you are clearly driving at something more general and that is the "order" present in nature. your central argument is based on what you subjectively call as "purpose", an "intelligent cause". i would be corollary then that the laws of physics, the mathematical axioms and everything else that we use in our capacity to understand these "patterns" are like that because they are designed to be like that. because it is the "purpose" of an "intelligent" creator.

    i want to try to understand your line of thinking so i'll use examples to illustrate how you prove the existence of "order" because of the prerequisite of "purpose".

    1. oxygen - its quite abundant on earth, though not necesarilly that abundant in the universe per se and is essential to life. without it, there won't be life (as we know it) here on earth. therefore it is there for the purpose of sustaining life on this planet.

    2. water - also quite abundant on earth and in rarely convenient liquid form too. without it life (as we know it) cannot exist. therefore it is there for the purpose of sustaining life on this planet.

    3. proximity to the sun - any nearer to the sun and it would be too hot for life (as we know it) to survive, any futher and it would be too cold (and water would freeze). therefore we are at this ideal distance since it is essential for life to exist.

    now before i continue probing, are those three statements accurate in describing your "theory" of intelligent purpose being the driving force of the universe? if not, please modify or clarify.
    Welcome to the discussion Gaku. Actually, I don’t think you understood my argument at all. The main question here is where does information that is both specified and complex come from? Can it come from nature alone? Can you give an example of information that is specified (has an intended purpose) and complex from nature?

Page 6 of 12 First ... 5 6 7 ... Last

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •