nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Scientific Claims: So-called "evolutionary computations" do not support evolution
::::::::: Yet the same doesn't seem to apply for goo-to-you evolution, which has almost no material evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::: Yet the same doesn't seem to apply for goo-to-you evolution, which has almost no material evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::There is no evidence that you accept, but here is quite some evidence, and in addition it is back-up by mathematical models which have been proven to work. That you only accept eyewitness reports is your choice, but you can't blame that other prefer to rely on more reliable evidence than eyewitness reports. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::There is no evidence that you accept, but here is quite some evidence, and in addition it is back-up by mathematical models which have been proven to work. That you only accept eyewitness reports is your choice, but you can't blame that other prefer to rely on more reliable evidence than eyewitness reports. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The maths actually work against it, as shown by evolutionists Hoyle and Wrickramasinghe. As for there being some evidence, claiming it without demonstrating it is a non-argument. There is almost no material evidence. No, I can't blame others for relying on more reliable evidence, but I'm disputing that the arguments based on materialistic assumptions ''are'' more reliable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
::::::::::: The maths actually work against it, as shown by evolutionists Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. As for there being some evidence, claiming it without demonstrating it is a non-argument. There is almost no material evidence. No, I can't blame others for relying on more reliable evidence, but I'm disputing that the arguments based on materialistic assumptions ''are'' more reliable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:32, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Hoyle and Wrickramasinghe were advocating panspermia, and their argument deals with abiogenisis. We've been over this before. Look at the work of Rechenberg, Fogel, and Holland, who have proven that simple arguments from improbability are not applying to evolution, i.e. they have proven mathematically that evolution is not a random walk. If you want to promote Hoyle's idea of panspermia to solve the problem of abiogenesis, feel free to do so. But this is a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Hoyle and Wrickramasinghe were advocating panspermia, and their argument deals with abiogenisis. We've been over this before. Look at the work of Rechenberg, Fogel, and Holland, who have proven that simple arguments from improbability are not applying to evolution, i.e. they have proven mathematically that evolution is not a random walk. If you want to promote Hoyle's idea of panspermia to solve the problem of abiogenesis, feel free to do so. But this is a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
: Evolution is by definition random at heart, because it excludes design. Yes, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were talking about abiogenesis, so that was a bad example. That they were promoting the idea of panspermia is irrelevant, though. Evolutionary computations do not prove that the mathematics of evolution work, because they are not trying to do that, and they are not actually models of evolution, but [[natural selection]]. See the dam example in that link (including in the last section) for further information, and see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5089/ here] for more reasons why the computations are not like evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)
===Interpretations===
===Interpretations===
:"''And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal.''": I don't read all of it literally because it wasn't meant to be read literally! If I read it the way that it was meant to be understood, how does that make it "my" reading?
:"''And yes, I mean '''your''' reading of the bible, because even you do not read all of it literal.''": I don't read all of it literally because it wasn't meant to be read literally! If I read it the way that it was meant to be understood, how does that make it "my" reading?