(May 25, 2013 at 9:56 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Now, to the challenge
Can and Evolutionist repeat one stage of the development of one part of the body of a single animal (an Eye for example)

Seems too hard????

What about reversing the process!
Making and Ape from human

Quote:Seems like a huge non-sequitur to me. How does claiming that evolution is very unlikely mean that we ought to try and replicate even one part of it? What the hell would that prove??

Remember that I don't deny evolution, only the UN-intilligent part!

Quote:The fact is that we're here, whether we were part of 1 million coins thrown up or whether we were designed. The latter explanation requires too many mental gymanstics for my liking, so I think I'll go with the former: there are billions upon billions of stars in the universe. That means there's probably trillions upon trillions of planets out there. You can figure out the rest...

This is totally irrelevant, the existence or non-existence of other life, doesn't mean that we came by a coincidence

If you agree with the first part, then any intelligence should be able to outperform the random (UN-intelligent) process

What we are not able to replicate any of the nature (UN-intelligent) actions?

The only possible answer is that the natural system is more intelligent than us.

---

(May 25, 2013 at 4:41 pm)apophenia Wrote:
Evolutionary algorithms which mimic evolutionary processes have been used to design antennas that outperform even the best designs that an intelligent human designer could produce. More proof that evolution is smarter than you.

Many thanks.

---

(May 25, 2013 at 2:42 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The eye is probably the single-most well represented structure in all of evolutionary biology. You probably should have picked something else - it's been done to death, I see no need to repeat it.

We "make apes" all day long, every time a human being is born. You haven't thought this through at all.

I read an article long time ago written by a stupid Evolutionist who claimed that the Eye evolved from skin in about 50 rounds.

---

(May 25, 2013 at 7:50 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:for example if I brought to you a stone statue and told you that it was created by weathering and erosion sculpting an existing natural rock in five minutes, you would not believe me because you will need (a month) to do it (with your intelligence)

No, I wouldn't believe you because five minutes isn't enough time for erosion to be enacted. And I'd recognize that my inability to envision a natural explanation doesn't mean there's a supernatural one, and also that my inability to do something doesn't mean nature is similarly incapable of it.

Give an example (other than evolution) where a random process cannot be matched by our intelligence!

Quote:

Quote:We can change species, has nothing to do with "UN-Intelligent" evolution, the max that you can prove is that Evolution may happened.

Why did you ask for it if you're then going to turn around and say it doesn't count? Shift the goalposts a little more, "Scholar."

Because intelligence is not about just making things, it is about the efficiency in doing things.

Can you give an example of a random process that can outperform an intelligent one (for a defined, repeated target)?

(May 26, 2013 at 6:36 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: This is totally irrelevant, the existence or non-existence of other life, doesn't mean that we came by a coincidence

If you agree with the first part, then any intelligence should be able to outperform the random (UN-intelligent) process

Can you demonstrate this, or is it just another thing you're going to assert over and over, as if that makes it true?

Quote:Give an example (other than evolution) where a random process cannot be matched by our intelligence!

One problem: evolution isn't a random process, and hence your comparison here, whether I can give an example or not, is flawed. Once again, you aren't even arguing the case you think you are; this entire argument has been unassailable from the outset, because it's clear you have almost no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:Because intelligence is not about just making things, it is about the efficiency in doing things.

Can you give an example of a random process that can outperform an intelligent one (for a defined, repeated target)?

And if I can't, how does that make intelligent design true? Even assuming that you understood what you're talking about, and your comparison here wasn't horribly flawed, you still have to provide evidence for your assertion; otherwise all you're proving is that we don't know everything yet.

Again, this is an argument from ignorance: you can't think of a way this could happen naturally, and therefore god.

It's a fallacy. You're wrong, at every conceivable scale of wrongness.

(May 26, 2013 at 6:36 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(May 25, 2013 at 4:41 pm)apophenia Wrote: Evolutionary algorithms which mimic evolutionary processes have been used to design antennas that outperform even the best designs that an intelligent human designer could produce. More proof that evolution is smarter than you.

Many thanks.


[...]

Can you give an example of a random process that can outperform an intelligent one (for a defined, repeated target)?

The answer is right there in your post... -.-'

I'm beginning to understand why some of our members just resort directly to calling you names.

(May 26, 2013 at 6:56 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 6:36 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: This is totally irrelevant, the existence or non-existence of other life, doesn't mean that we came by a coincidence

If you agree with the first part, then any intelligence should be able to outperform the random (UN-intelligent) process

Can you demonstrate this, or is it just another thing you're going to assert over and over, as if that makes it true?

To make it shourt, define intelligence and how can we know if a process is or isn't?

Quote:

Quote:Give an example (other than evolution) where a random process cannot be matched by our intelligence!

One problem: evolution isn't a random process, and hence your comparison here, whether I can give an example or not, is flawed. Once again, you aren't even arguing the case you think you are; this entire argument has been unassailable from the outset, because it's clear you have almost no idea what you're talking about.

Replace every word I say "Random" by non-intelligent!

Quote:

Quote:Because intelligence is not about just making things, it is about the efficiency in doing things.
Can you give an example of a random process that can outperform an intelligent one (for a defined, repeated target)?

And if I can't, how does that make intelligent design true? Even assuming that you understood what you're talking about, and your comparison here wasn't horribly flawed, you still have to provide evidence for your assertion; otherwise all you're proving is that we don't know everything yet.

If you cannot then your understanding of the word intelligence is not supported by anything, while mine is supported by every thing we can see; which make it very applicable to be used on evolution as well.

(May 26, 2013 at 7:15 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: To make it shourt, define intelligence and how can we know if a process is or isn't?

So, to be absolutely clear: you've voiced a contention to evolution, despite not having a clear definition of the central premise of your issue, nor any functional way to discern if it is even in play.

Out-fucking-standing.

Quote:Replace every word I say "Random" by non-intelligent!

"Scholar," I replace every word you say with the words "non-intelligent."

It saves time, and is far more accurate.

Quote:If you cannot then your understanding of the word intelligence is not supported by anything, while mine is supported by every thing we can see; which make it very applicable to be used on evolution as well.

You wanna do something other than spew word salad, fool? Like I said, you have to provide evidence for your assertion, not just objections to one alternative. So far, you haven't done anything of the sort; your claim is one made without evidence, and it's an act of extreme charity that any of us have bothered to try and correct you, rather than quite rightly telling you to shove it.

Now, do you have any evidence FOR your claim that evolution is guided by an intelligent source, or not?

(May 26, 2013 at 7:27 am)Esquilax Wrote: Now, do you have any evidence FOR your claim that evolution is guided by an intelligent source, or not?

I already did, the problem is that you ready to reject and deny anything for the sake of your "no" religion!

You need to tell me, what is your definition of intelligence and how to distinguish an intelligent process from a non-intelligent one.

(May 28, 2013 at 2:01 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I already did, the problem is that you ready to reject and deny anything for the sake of your "no" religion!

"Scholar," what you have provided is a number of (flawed, nonsensical) contentions against the current model of evolution. Negativity is not evidence for your claim. You can provide as much evidence against naturalistic evolution as you like, it doesn't make your divine claim true. At most, even if you were one hundred percent correct (and you aren't) it just makes naturalistic evolution wrong. It doesn't say one word about the accuracy of your claim.

You've provided no evidence for your claim.

Quote:You need to tell me, what is your definition of intelligence and how to distinguish an intelligent process from a non-intelligent one.

No, you do, because you're the one making the claim against the consensus of scientists. I can rely on the fact that the people who actually study this stuff disagree with you. Besides, it's your contention, you need to define the terms of it and then provide evidence for it.

So far, you've been unable to even acknowledge anyone else providing counter evidence, so I'm not holding my breath.

(May 28, 2013 at 2:01 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 7:27 am)Esquilax Wrote: Now, do you have any evidence FOR your claim that evolution is guided by an intelligent source, or not?

I already did, the problem is that you ready to reject and deny anything for the sake of your "no" religion!

You need to tell me, what is your definition of intelligence and how to distinguish an intelligent process from a non-intelligent one.

No, that's not true. We actually just reject nonsense, you know, like when someone postulates a contention to an established and thoroughly supported theory without actually defining or seeking to establish the premises on which that contention is based (aside god did it).

It reeks of something that makes no sense at all.

But please, do continue wasting yours and everyone else's time. If nothing else, the post count is ticking over nicely.

(May 28, 2013 at 3:34 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(May 28, 2013 at 2:01 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I already did, the problem is that you ready to reject and deny anything for the sake of your "no" religion!

You need to tell me, what is your definition of intelligence and how to distinguish an intelligent process from a non-intelligent one.

No, that's not true. We actually just reject nonsense, you know, like when someone postulates a contention to an established and thoroughly supported theory without actually defining or seeking to establish the premises on which that contention is based (aside god did it).

It reeks of something that makes no sense at all.

But please, do continue wasting yours and everyone else's time. If nothing else, the post count is ticking over nicely.

Just avoiding the question again!

---

(May 28, 2013 at 3:31 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:You need to tell me, what is your definition of intelligence and how to distinguish an intelligent process from a non-intelligent one.

No, you do, because you're the one making the claim against the consensus of scientists. I can rely on the fact that the people who actually study this stuff disagree with you. Besides, it's your contention, you need to define the terms of it and then provide evidence for it.

I already did, then you rejected my definition!!!

I said that a non-intelligent process must be outperformed by intelligence or else it is not on-intelligent.
Can you refute that, or at leas bring a counter example?

(May 28, 2013 at 4:34 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I already did, then you rejected my definition!!!

I said that a non-intelligent process must be outperformed by intelligence or else it is not on-intelligent.
Can you refute that, or at leas bring a counter example?

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, "Scholar." To demand I prove wrong an assertion you haven't yet proved is just another argument from ignorance.