[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 

Intelligent design is not necessary, and niether is the random action open to 

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!"

  ----- 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; 
  '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


  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