Originally posted by jrotten666:
Fine, in the meantime I will put this in very simple terms:
Fine, but I don't need you to put it in simple terms.
Originally posted by jrotten666:
1) A computer system who's hard drive suddenly becomes corrupted and produces Windows is not analogous to the radiation of species.
It is if you would understand I'm talking about the accumulation of information through mutation.
Originally posted by jrotten666:
What you are talking about is a computer system randomly generating software.
Well, of course. That's what I exactly said.
Originally posted by jrotten666:
If you want to compare this to the origin of life, fine. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the origen of species.
No, you still don't get it. Life or species, is irrelevant. It is about the accumulation of information through mutation.
Originally posted by jrotten666:
How life began is a legitimate question and one that science has some good theories about, but no hard answers, That doesn't mean that we need to insert God into the equation. It just means that it is one of those questions that we do not have a real certain answer for and that we may never have.
We need to insert God into the equation if He is a possibiliy for the production of all life, especially since you plainly say, we have no hard answers and may never have.
Originally posted by jrotten666:
2) If you want to use a better analogy, you would use an example of software becoming "corrupted" and then propagating this corruption to another instance of that software (it's descendant) and producing over time a superior piece of software.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. I thought it was obvious.
Originally posted by jrotten666:
Problem is, software does not do this. Applications do not propagate. They are designed to execute their set of instructions and nothing more. They do not pass their code to their offspring, because they do not reproduce. This makes your analogy fall flat right there. You try to fool people and maybe even yourself into thinking that if evolution were true, then a computer should also just be powered on and Windows could be the result.
Ah, but it does reproduce. You need to think of it in another way. Let's say a harddrive is constantly making little errors. Doubling small parts of the code, ommitting other parts, and doing other slight mutations. The computer is rebooted and therefore these changes are passed on to the next generation of software life (use).
It will never make the program better for long. Who knows, amazingly one small mutation will eventually yield a positive. The point is that since mutations are almost exclusively bad, it will kill the program long before it gets better. And you could have a million machines doing the same thing and only the ones producing positive outcomes wouldn't lock up and they would continue. You would never end up with something useful.
Originally posted by jrotten666:
) Software can be designed to propogate, like oraganisms. It could be designed to reproduce copies of itself and to be driven to do so. However, even in this instance, your analogy would fail. Say an application did become corrupted, so that when it replicated itself, this mutation carried over. In every instance this would not be a good thing. When that set of instructions executed, it would fail. In other words, it would not be a viable organism. It would be like every genetic variation being [insert your always fatal genetic disease]. There would be no enviromental situation where the "corruption" would be beneficial. This is not true with living things. Mutations (i.e. genetic variations) are not necessarily a bad thing. Take melanin for example. This genetic trait is beneficial in warmer climates and not in colder climates. With your analogy, the mutation would always be destructive, to the point where the organism would not even be viable. As the melanin example demonstrates, this is not true with living organisms.
Nope, you're wrong. Perhaps just the color changed in the background of windows and it saved some extra hard drive space by being a mutation that did it more efficiently. Therefore, it saved itself from that sector that went bad the next week.
Mutations are almost exclusively bad. A species would be wiped out by nagging ones that didn't benefit, but didn't quite kill it, before anything truly productive, like an eye, could develop. The eye itself wouldn't even make it, since it would be prone to the negative influence of mutations while it was allegedly mutating toward something useful.
It's all about the accumulation of "positive" information.
Originally posted by jrotten666:
4) Of course you use a computer as an example to try to fool people into thinking evolution is false. But why not a watch? If evolution were true, then a watch that was dropped into the toilet should have also suffered "selective pressures" and a superior watch produced as the result. Of course your ordinary person would see right through this metaphor as false because even a child could see that a watch is a man-made machine. So you try to use the "mysticism" of computer technology and feed off the general lack of technical knowledge a lot of people possess to try to get your point across.
LOL - don't be so dramatic. I used a computer because it has an information/code system that can mutate. Of course, I wouldn't use a watch.
And after reading everything you've thrown out I don't see one reason to stop using this illustration.
Originally posted by jrotten666:
You really are better off just sticking to the faith angle. Doesn't matter what the facts are or the evidence. You just need to have faith in God. Too bad that the general population is a little more sophisticated than a few hundred years ago, so that you have to try to put some kind of scientific veneer on superstitious nonesense.
And macro evolutionists are better off just sticking with the faith part too in this religion. The theory has been around for over a century and a half and hundreds of millions aren't buying it. And included in those hundreds of millions are also real working and contributing scientists who know its demise is only a matter of time.