Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[olavisjo]

.

I enjoy a joke as much as the next man but forum rules prohibit an adequate response to these comments. Just let me say that they are sufficient to demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea about the meaning of analogue, digital, or for that matter, evolution, or DNA.

Well said.

Notice how anxious Student is to tell me that I have absolutely no idea about the meaning of anything. And also notice that he is unable to explain why I have no idea.
I think it is because some people are defending a position that they have been indoctrinated into rather than actually studied. Instead of thinking for themselves they ask for 'publications' that have already done the thinking for them.
I have said nothing complicated, and if you will simply think about it you will see that what I have said is true.

[olavisjo]

.

How short is your memory, or is it simply selective amnesia? I was asking about the publication, in which, you claimed, Francis Crick debunked Darwinian Evolution.

Cricks paper regarding the structure of DNA, published in 1953, does not appear to mention debunking Darwin. Do you have some other publication in mind or are you simply making it up?

Yes, my memory is short. Fortunately the Internet has a better memory, so please show me where I claimed a publication, that claimed, Francis Crick debunked Darwinian Evolution.

[Danmark]

.

I enjoy a joke as much as the next man but forum rules prohibit an adequate response to these comments. Just let me say that they are sufficient to demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea about the meaning of analogue, digital, or for that matter, evolution, or DNA.

Well said.

Notice how anxious Student is to tell me that I have absolutely no idea about the meaning of anything. And also notice that he is unable to explain why I have no idea.
I think it is because some people are defending a position that they have been indoctrinated into rather than actually studied. Instead of thinking for themselves they ask for 'publications' that have already done the thinking for them.
I have said nothing complicated, and if you will simply think about it you will see that what I have said is true.

[BTW my 'Well said' was for the entire post, and in no way was intended as an endorsement that you 'have absolutely no idea about the meaning of anything.' I have the opposite view of you]

Without attributing this to anyone in particular I agree with your Instead of thinking for themselves they ask for 'publications' that have already done the thinking for them. I think there is too much of that sort of thing being done by all. I would hope that we all, when we repeat some new idea that has us fired up, would take the time to think it out for ourselves before repeating it. I also think it is good from time to time to challenge and reevaluate our own presuppositions.

In that regard do you think the process I've just described (and I assume you agree with) is more frequently the attitude of science or faith?

[olavisjo]

.

I confess I don't have the slightest clue what your basis for your statement on quine computing is.

It is claimed that the secret sauce in Darwinian evolution is...

• mutation
  migration
  genetic drift
  natural selection

If this were true, then this formula should produce evolution on a computer that is programed with those ingredients. I am willing to give it a try but the Darwinists themselves are convinced that their secret sauce is not all that is needed for evolution to occur.

[olavisjo]

.

In that regard do you think the process I've just described (and I assume you agree with) is more frequently the attitude of science or faith?

Yes, for true faith and true science.
No, for false faith and false science.

[Danmark]

.

I confess I don't have the slightest clue what your basis for your statement on quine computing is.

It is claimed that the secret sauce in Darwinian evolution is...

• mutation
  migration
  genetic drift
  natural selection

If this were true, then this formula should produce evolution on a computer that is programed with those ingredients. I am willing to give it a try but the Darwinists themselves are convinced that their secret sauce is not all that is needed for evolution to occur.

I guess I don't really follow this line of thinking. I don't see how repeating a line of computer code millions of times would lead to mutation, migration' genetic drift, or natural selection. Perhaps I flatter myself, but these processes do make sense to me in regard to the DNA/RNA process where we can actually see changes to the genetic code over time for a variety of reasons. Remember, when we are talking about a code that replicates organic, living matter, we are addressing staggering amounts of information.

The human brain alone consists of 86 to 100 billion separate neurons, some of those neurons having as many as 10,000 interconnections each. The worlds most powerful computer does not begin to approach connections of this magnitude, tho' scientists are working on it.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-08-j ... brain.html

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2784:

...
You cannot use the techniques of religious beliefs to discover an inhabited universe.

Best I can tell, ya can't use it for much more'n discovering one's incredulity.

You cannot use the techniques of scientific inquiry to discover a god.

Kinda hard to discover something that ain't there to get it discovered.

There is common ground here and you rightly mention speculation as one of them. These two metaphysical pursuits have often shared their appetite for knowledge in the past and they might do this again. To repeatedly seek difference and to reject the shared speculative nature of both is to deny that past and to look for a polarity of separation that ultimately does not exist.
...

I see little common ground in the religious approach to discovery, and the scientific approach. I find religious "discovery" to most often involve inserting a god where an absence of any other explanation is available. Science will place such a lack into the "beats me, but let's keep a-lookin'" category.

With respect, I find yours a faulty line of reasoning. It is, with no nefarity, an effort to equate the religious with the scientific.

You cannot use the techniques of religious beliefs to discover an inhabited universe. You cannot use the techniques of scientific inquiry to discover a god. There is common ground here and you rightly mention speculation as one of them. These two metaphysical pursuits have often shared their appetite for knowledge in the past and they might do this again. To repeatedly seek difference and to reject the shared speculative nature of both is to deny that past and to look for a polarity of separation that ultimately does not exist. That is what is being attempted constantly on this thread.

I include the entire paragraph to ensure folks have complete data here. Your last sentence is what I wanna get at, and by that I mean I don't guess I disagree. I would say that "shared their appetite for knowledge in the past" should not lead us to conclude "it's in the Bible, so there" is any form of scientific argument.

[olavisjo]

.

I guess I don't really follow this line of thinking.

The idea is to create virtual cells that reproduce, then introduce a small amount of variation to the reproduction. If Darwinian evolution is true then these cells will become more fit for survival and reproduction as they will compete with each other for computer time and space. There should be no limit to how sophisticated these cyber cells can become.

[Star]

I have suggested that this thread attempts to create a fictitious division between two metaphysical approaches to understanding our existence.

There's nothing 'fictitious' about the staggering gulf between science and superstition, between astronomy and astrology, between mathematics and malarkey. You might just as well claim the divide between cosmology and cosmetology is fictitious.

The bolded part made me LOL.

Good points.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2792:

The idea is to create virtual cells that reproduce, then introduce a small amount of variation to the reproduction.

Yessir.

If Darwinian evolution is true then these cells will become more fit for survival and reproduction as they will compete with each other for computer time and space.

Not necessarily. Mutations can be considered, simplistically here, to have three outcomes - detriment, dismissal, and dang sure glad.

On detriment, the mutation will negatively impact the long-term survival.

On dismissal, the mutation will have no impact.

On dang sure glad, everybody's happy and mirth and merriment spread across the land.

There should be no limit to how sophisticated these cyber cells can become.

"Sophisticated" is a subjective term, and a faulty way to go. Do you really expect these "cyber cells" to become a living, breathing entity?

Computer simulations of evolutionary notions are merely one tool among many. They inform our understanding, but do not provide a foundation. The foundation is the observation that mutations occur, these mutations have an impact, and that through time we can see that speciation occurs.

We can look at various closely-related species and come to a much better understanding than any computer simulation may ever offer.

Your line of reasoning is, I contend, faulty. I base my conclusion on your use of analogy - with its inherent problems, an incomplete set of data, and erroneous conclusions derived therefrom.

Computer simulations of evolution fail?

We conclude computers can't do them no good evolutin'.

We don't toss out the very foundation of our understanding of observed, testable, and confirmed biological processes.