Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Programming of Life 2

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default Programming of Life 2

    Below is a vid put out by Programming of Life 2. It's the first in a series of 10, each about 3+ to 4+ minutes totaling about 40-50 minutes. You can go to the link at the bottom for all 10, if you are interested.

    For those who would want to know what it is about: It's scientific, and mathematical evidence disproving Evolution. And as far as I know, I started watching at part 4, there is no mention of the Bible or Creation.



    http://programmingoflife.com/program...-life-2-earth/

    My bad the vid I posted is the whole thing in one shot. About 36+ minutes long. If you want to catch it in sections click on the link.
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    In case anyone missed Programming of Life 1: about 45 minutes



    To get it in sections:

    http://programmingoflife.com/programming-of-life/
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    I see there have been 60 views to this thread, but no replies.

    Was wondering if anyone had watched the vids? If so, any thoughts?

    Right now I'm kind of reading it as no thoughts. LOL
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    WA Coast
    Posts
    4,774

    Default

    Judging by the first few minutes and by the book that it is based on, it is just repackaging of the same old creationist arguments - trying to apply information theory to evolution, which is an uncertain task even when attempted sincerely; and poorly constructed probabilistic arguments about the complexity of certain structures. These are arguments that, in general, are only satisfying to people who are looking for reasons to discard evolution, don't replace it with a more functional understanding, and aren't taken seriously by almost anyone working in the field who is not employed by a creationist think tank. If they make you happy, great. It is difficult to have a discussion on the subject, because it requires both a strong understanding of evolutionary biology and information theory, a combination which very few people possess. It would be like a debate over the merits of Java and C++ between people who have never programmed a computer.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissimulo View Post
    Judging by the first few minutes and by the book that it is based on, it is just repackaging of the same old creationist arguments - trying to apply information theory to evolution, which is an uncertain task even when attempted sincerely; and poorly constructed probabilistic arguments about the complexity of certain structures. These are arguments that, in general, are only satisfying to people who are looking for reasons to discard evolution, don't replace it with a more functional understanding, and aren't taken seriously by almost anyone working in the field who is not employed by a creationist think tank. If they make you happy, great. It is difficult to have a discussion on the subject, because it requires both a strong understanding of evolutionary biology and information theory, a combination which very few people possess. It would be like a debate over the merits of Java and C++ between people who have never programmed a computer.
    Yes, how dare anyone attempt to apply mathematics to the theory of evolution. Everyone knows evolution is true because that is the basic starting assumption so all that is left to do is just try to figure out how it could actually have happened, and when you are trying to do that you wouldn't want to let a little mathematics get in the way. In the actual "hard" sciences, unless a phenomenon can be described mathematically, it is assumed you really understand nothing about it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Providence, R.I.
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    It's one thing to argue for a First Cause. Something else to prove it was your version of this First Cause that was responsible for everything.
    Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium.
    I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery.

    “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
    Gandalf the Grey

    People with ethics have little use for the state. Conversely, the state has little use for people with ethics.

    My Disqus channel:

    https://disqus.com/by/PierreBezukhov1812/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bezukhov View Post
    It's one thing to argue for a First Cause. Something else to prove it was your version of this First Cause that was responsible for everything.
    For a Christian, First Cause is not an issue.

    Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

    For an evolutionist, First Cause is an impossible argument to make. Evolutionary theory was proposed to eliminate the need for God to have created anything. So if they have the courage to confront reality, all they are left with is trying to argue that life came to exist on earth solely by natural causes, something that is so improbable that it is considered "operationally impossible".

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    NEMS
    Posts
    6,207

    Default

    Hey 9er,

    Good to see you, here's hoping you've been doing good.

    Before your post in the my prayer thread, thanks BTW, I was beginning to formulate a means to contact you, and check on your well being.

    I find it interesting in that, I ask for "thoughts" and our 2 resident atheist respond, in the negative. Which is fine, but am wondering about Christians thoughts too. Was any light shed in their view of things?

    Concerning their comments, which is fine, no problem here with them giving their thoughts, I noticed a couple of things:

    In dissimulo's reply it came across, that the person who posted the vid. (me) was as dumb as a post, and he couldn't talk real science with me because of it. When I would of thought he would of presented evidence of his own, rebutting the comments, and evidence of the SCIENTISTS in the vid.

    Something like this: Geophysicist Dr. Something, misrepresented the Cambrian Explosion when he said nearly ALL phyla are found in a single layer of strata, because there are millions of phyla found in strata that represents a pre human civilization, predating the Cambrian by millions of years, as evidenced by .............

    But instead yours truly's knowledge is called into question.

    And how can one calculate gravity without math? The speed of light? The age of man? The timetable of erosion in the Grand Canyon? How much water (volume) a swimming pool will hold, so one can figure out, calculate, the strength of the supports. Which wasn't done with the bridge collapse in FL.

    Without math how can you make a bet that the top card in a deck of cards is the Ace of Spades (1 in 52). And that same calculation (1 in 52) on a horse, is a really long shot, and is probably a sucker's bet. So when a scientist says that the odds of anything greater than 10 to the 70th (a 1 with 70 zeros behind it) power is operationally impossible, concerning something happening by chance, they know what they are talking about. Now that is a real suckers bet.

    And concerning Bez's reply: Just a suggestion, but maybe you should review the vid again, just saying. Why? Because they didn't give out a "first cause". All the vid did was say the "first cause" wasn't evolution. Based upon the evidence in the strata. They suggest that "Critical Thinking" should be employed, instead of a mantra of philosophy. No alternative is mentioned.

    The Cambrian Explosion, which took place about 530 million years ago, provides a major challenge to the traditional mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. In the words of one
    evolutionary biologist:
    “The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during this brief time period requires explanations that go beyond those proposed for the evolution of species within the modern biota.” (R. L. Carroll, “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,”
    Trends in Ecology and Evolution,
    Vol. 15(1):27-32 (2000))
    http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/cambrian-explosion.php

    And they aren't the only ones it seems.

    Wonder what kind of odds one could get in Vegas that this happened by chance? 1 in 10 to the 164th? Wouldn't that be a sucker's bet?
    Wise Men Still Seek Him

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    Hey 9er,

    Good to see you, here's hoping you've been doing good.
    Good to see you too, Cary and I am continuing to pray for your son. I have been well but just taking a break.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    In dissimulo's reply it came across, that the person who posted the vid. (me) was as dumb as a post, and he couldn't talk real science with me because of it. When I would of thought he would of presented evidence of his own, rebutting the comments, and evidence of the SCIENTISTS in the vid.
    Yes, I thought his reply was quite revealing. Probabilities are the bane and the boogeyman of the evolutionist. Normally, they would just like to think they don't exist. But when they are forced to confront them they have to say something like that because those kinds of numbers attack the basis of their whole philosophy of life. They have convinced themselves that evolution is without doubt absolutely true so anything that would question (or disprove) that axiom, by definition, has to be wrong and anyone who would present data like that is obviously ignorant.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaryC View Post
    Wonder what kind of odds one could get in Vegas that this happened by chance? 1 in 10 to the 164th? Wouldn't that be a sucker's bet?
    Yes, but they keep taking that bet because the alternative is unacceptable to their philosophy.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissimulo View Post
    Judging by the first few minutes and by the book that it is based on, it is just repackaging of the same old creationist arguments - trying to apply information theory to evolution, which is an uncertain task even when attempted sincerely; and poorly constructed probabilistic arguments about the complexity of certain structures. These are arguments that, in general, are only satisfying to people who are looking for reasons to discard evolution, don't replace it with a more functional understanding, and aren't taken seriously by almost anyone working in the field who is not employed by a creationist think tank. If they make you happy, great. It is difficult to have a discussion on the subject, because it requires both a strong understanding of evolutionary biology and information theory, a combination which very few people possess. It would be like a debate over the merits of Java and C++ between people who have never programmed a computer.
    Your science is flawed possibly because it has to evolve as new discoveries are made and knowledge increases.


    Leftism Is a Religion Without The Ability To Forgive

Posting Permissions

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