[geocentrism] monkeys and things
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:32:35 +1000
Against evolution no : For creation Yes.
Just butting in here. I never did think the perpetual monkey at a perpetual
typewriter as being anything other rhan a childrens aid to understanding the
meaning of eternity and the infinite. Taken to its extreme, every book would
end up being typed an infinite number of times, and every piece of garbage
likewise.
Intelligent design is not necessary, and niether is the random action open to
infinity.
Natural laws are by nature limiited. Even natural selection which we all
accept, has limits. Freaks just do not get to survive, but yes environment ,
radiation for example, can even cause damage. But lets not get confused with
words. A very beautiful new coloured parrot is a freak, but may still survive
to produce a new variety. Just how many cats did Noah take?
Back to numbers. As I said earlier, even including isotopes, Hydrogen and
Oxygen do not have more than a few possible combinations..Fill an isolated
container on a large scale, and water is bound to happen very quickly. Its
natural law, as basic and immutable as geometry .
This very basic example of chemistry extended to a basic beginning of say
infinite numbers of positive and electrical charges. and let loose to do its
random thing, cannot by these same basic laws, make an infinite number of
combinations. The laws of chemistry whilst certainly not complete, are
certainly replete with established fixed, laws of combinations, outside of
which un natural combinations are impossible.
As I have said, God created an evolved world in six days, but that world was in
accord with natural laws..such as would indicate support for the principle of
evolution. There is no argument winable against this principle, which has His
endorsement. in His creation.
In doing battle with the anti-creationists we delight in saying , "ah! but
where did all those positive and electrical charges come from? Gotcha!"
But I am not so sure that the answer is impossible to find. God would know.
Perhaps , no not perhaps, but certainly, it is the spark of that spirit called
animation, the human personality and soul, that is a mystery which science will
never penetrate, let alone create. That is where I will say to them, "Gotcha!"
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:47 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] John Rennie
Dear Paul,
As you requested I just looked at one of the points in John Rennie's answers
to creationists (I have read this before) and I would comment on this
particular contribution;
Quote
'As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those
hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take
as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But
in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that
generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters
that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more
like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336
iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct
Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
That sounds like a very clever and intelligent piece of programming???? How
would nature be able to accomplish the same thing without an intelligent
programmer? Nature has no intelligence, it is not a measurable force or
measurable anything it is merely a name we give to that which is not created by
man (intelligence).
This is the most stupid explanation for evolution I have ever come across. It
is exactly the same as R. Dawkins' 'Me thinks its like a weasel' that I
mentioned in a previous e-mail. It just reeks of purpose, intelligence,
direction in fact the complete opposite of randomeness. Also I suspect that the
program was written to detect the required number of letters and their
particular sequence. To be closer to evolution the programmer should have asked
the computer to use the 26 letters and to randomely select any group of letters
from 1 to 26 ( not necessarily all different - they could all be the same
number) and arranged them in any order until he sees TOBEORNOTTOBE appear. Its
possible he could have spotted 'cat' or rumplestiltskin' or
'ttthonnnnntoojacdsfr' It would take a lot more than 336 iterations. The
monkey's 26 ^13 over 78,000 years is much more like it because the monkeys
would be behaving in randomely whereas, as he said, an intelligently designed
program could do it in 336. You could easily write a program that would do it
in 1! What's so special about 336? The whole thing is a nonsensical exercise
that only shows up the stupidity of the programmer.
Jack Lewis
www.classiccarartist.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1002 - Release Date: 11/09/2007
5:46 PM
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] monkeys and things
