(May 11, 2018 at 3:12 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 11, 2018 at 3:05 am)Kit Wrote: Sure~

Glad you're in agreement.

Glad you prefer ignorance over truth.

(May 11, 2018 at 2:54 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 11, 2018 at 2:53 am)Kit Wrote: If you honestly believe that, the fault lies with you that you are incapable of seeing how erroneous your thought processes are.  Have you provided a peer reviewed scientific article in relation to DNA being so complex that it undeniably proves the existence of a designer?

ID Peer Reviewed Articles:

https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

That list is so contrived. So many of those papers you look at the title and think, what the hell does that have to do with ID? For example it lists a paper published in the field of AI.

Detecting Intelligence:The Turing Test and Other Design Detection Methodologies

Abstract:

Quote:"Can machines think?”  When faced with this “meaningless” question, Alan Turing suggested we ask a dif-
ferent, more precise question: can a machine reliably fool a human interviewer into believing the machine is
human? To answer this question, Turing outlined what came to be known as the Turing Test for artificial intel-
ligence, namely, an imitation game where machines and humans interacted from remote locations and human
judges had to distinguish between the human and machine participants.  According to the test, machines that
consistently fool human judges are to be viewed as intelligent.  While popular culture champions the Turing
Test as a scientific procedure for detecting artificial intelligence, doing so raises significant issues.  First, a
simple argument establishes the equivalence of the Turing Test to intelligent design methodology in several
fundamental respects. Constructed with similar goals, shared assumptions and identical observational models,
both projects attempt to detect intelligent agents through the examination of generated artifacts of uncertain
origin. Second, if the Turing Test rests on scientifically defensible assumptions then design inferences become
possible and cannot, in general, be wholly unscientific.  Third, if passing the Turing Test reliably indicates
intelligence, this implies the likely existence of a designing intelligence in nature.

So some religionist crap stuck onto the end of what is a legitimate question. Although actually a rather redundant question because we have known for decades now that the Turing test is not a reliable test for intelligence and you can easily create a bot that looks intelligent but isn't by making it obsessed with a single subject and largely ignore everything said to it. It would act quite like you in fact.

(May 11, 2018 at 3:14 am)Kit Wrote:

(May 11, 2018 at 3:12 am)CDF47 Wrote: Glad you're in agreement.

Glad you prefer ignorance over truth.

Sad you ignore scientific facts that are clear as day and relatively easy to understand.

---

(May 11, 2018 at 3:17 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 11, 2018 at 2:54 am)CDF47 Wrote: ID Peer Reviewed Articles:

https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

That list is so contrived. So many of those papers you look at the title and think, what the hell does that have to do with ID? For example it lists a paper published in the field of AI.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~gmontane/pdfs/mon...ecting.pdf

Abstract:

Quote:"Can machines think?”  When faced with this “meaningless” question, Alan Turing suggested we ask a dif-
ferent, more precise question: can a machine reliably fool a human interviewer into believing the machine is
human? To answer this question, Turing outlined what came to be known as the Turing Test for artificial intel-
ligence, namely, an imitation game where machines and humans interacted from remote locations and human
judges had to distinguish between the human and machine participants.  According to the test, machines that
consistently fool human judges are to be viewed as intelligent.  While popular culture champions the Turing
Test as a scientific procedure for detecting artificial intelligence, doing so raises significant issues.  First, a
simple argument establishes the equivalence of the Turing Test to intelligent design methodology in several
fundamental respects. Constructed with similar goals, shared assumptions and identical observational models,
both projects attempt to detect intelligent agents through the examination of generated artifacts of uncertain
origin. Second, if the Turing Test rests on scientifically defensible assumptions then design inferences become
possible and cannot, in general, be wholly unscientific.  Third, if passing the Turing Test reliably indicates
intelligence, this implies the likely existence of a designing intelligence in nature.

So some religionist crap stuck onto the end of what is a legitimate question. Although actually a rather redundant question because we have known for decades now that the Turing test is not a reliable test for intelligence and you can easily create a bot that looks intelligent but isn't by making it obsessed with a single subject and largely ignore everything said to it. It would act quite like you in fact.

You're hilarious.  Did you come up with that one all by yourself to hurt my feelings or did you consult with your little atheist buddies on here.

(May 11, 2018 at 3:17 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 11, 2018 at 3:14 am)Kit Wrote: Glad you prefer ignorance over truth.

Sad you ignore scientific facts that are clear as day and relatively easy to understand.

I love science.  Clearly, you don't, because you will resort to nonsense and call it science.

(May 11, 2018 at 3:19 am)Kit Wrote:

(May 11, 2018 at 3:17 am)CDF47 Wrote: Sad you ignore scientific facts that are clear as day and relatively easy to understand.

I love science.  Clearly, you don't, because you will resort to nonsense and call it science.

Re-read the OP.  It is clear DNA is designed.

(May 11, 2018 at 3:17 am)CDF47 Wrote: You're hilarious.  Did you come up with that one all by yourself to hurt my feelings or did you consult with your little atheist buddies on here.

Thanks for confirming what I posted:

(May 11, 2018 at 2:11 am)Mathilda Wrote: CDF47 thinks a debate is to just repeat his own points repeatedly while ignoring everyone else's counter-argument. He'll probably then walk away once we've all grown bored and think that he's won because we couldn't convince him of anything.

He's not even bothering to give proper answers, just one line responses.

You're just a noise generator. A spammer. You don't even know what a debate is.

(May 11, 2018 at 3:21 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 11, 2018 at 3:19 am)Kit Wrote: I love science.  Clearly, you don't, because you will resort to nonsense and call it science.

Re-read the OP.  It is clear DNA is designed.

DNA is a process of evolution.  You keep claiming designation, yet not providing proper evidence.

(May 11, 2018 at 3:21 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 11, 2018 at 3:17 am)CDF47 Wrote: You're hilarious.  Did you come up with that one all by yourself to hurt my feelings or did you consult with your little atheist buddies on here.

Thanks for confirming what I posted:

(May 11, 2018 at 2:11 am)Mathilda Wrote: CDF47 thinks a debate is to just repeat his own points repeatedly while ignoring everyone else's counter-argument. He'll probably then walk away once we've all grown bored and think that he's won because we couldn't convince him of anything.

He's not even bothering to give proper answers, just one line responses.

You're just a noise generator. A spammer. You don't even know what a debate is.

It's definitely not what the atheists are doing in this thread which is name calling, insults, wining, crying, straw-man arguments,.....

(May 11, 2018 at 3:23 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 11, 2018 at 3:21 am)Mathilda Wrote: Thanks for confirming what I posted:



You're just a noise generator. A spammer. You don't even know what a debate is.

It's definitely not what the atheists are doing in this thread which is name calling, insults, wining, crying, straw-man arguments,.....

Boo-hoo, get over it.  

After the 50th time you've repeated the same untruth, do you blame them?

(May 11, 2018 at 3:25 am)Kit Wrote:

(May 11, 2018 at 3:23 am)CDF47 Wrote: It's definitely not what the atheists are doing in this thread which is name calling, insults, wining, crying, straw-man arguments,.....

Boo-hoo, get over it.  

After the 50th time you've repeated the same untruth, do you blame them?

Yeah, I blame them.  They debate like a menstrual 14 year old whiny girl.