Dog Posted 6 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 6 September, 2011 OK disbelievers, last night I was awoken by a huge bang on the bedside table at 4.05am, it then repeated itself once whilst I was awake followed by around ten tapping noises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 The argument goes something along these lines: All codes, languages, computer protocols etc have an intelligence behind them that devised the code in the first place. Codes don't just evolve from randomness.For example, experiments have been done with monkeys where they let them type randomly on keyboards to see if they produce anything legible. Of course, they don't. The chances of an ape randomly hitting keys and producing a legible sentence are practically zero. DNA’s definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960′s. Therefore, as with all codes, there must be an intelligent design behind it. This may or may not be "God" as we know God from the Bible, but an intelligent design none the less. Here is a link to the reasoning if you are so interested http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/ Well there could be a supreme being that created everything, I mean, I suppose the arguement that keeps getting pushed back when science discovers something new is that well what created that then etc etc. It is a fair point, not one I subscribe too but one that I cannot dismiss out of hand, as in all honesty it is almost a valid arguement, I mean, currently physics tells us that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and so how did it begin in the first place ?? considering that the world we 'believe' we live in is governed by finite constraints and time is essentially finite then it had to all start at some point somewhere. I don't see how DNA is a 'code' created by intelligent life however, it is a pattern, and a building block. By that logic you could argue that everything in life has a blueprint, a design and so there must have been something behind it to create it and design it. I can't see that. Life has evolved through time, situations and adaptability to what it is now and over the millions of years will continue to do so. The reason we believe DNA to be a code is because this is how we as humans attempt to understand things, the fact that everything has to be categorized and theorized, just because we have defined it as a literal code, does not mean that it is a code created by something, it is just how we understand it, and if I am honest I don't believe we understand it completely yet. FWIW Apes do not have the same mental capacity as we do however they do have a capacity to learn and teach and so yes, it is concievable that given time they could potentially type harry potter books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 OK disbelievers, last night I was awoken by a huge bang on the bedside table at 4.05am, it then repeated itself once whilst I was awake followed by around ten tapping noises. So what are you actually going to do about all this nawtyness then ?? Have you looked into exorcism ?? And in all honesty I would be interested for you to leave a noise recorder on and let us hear what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 6 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 6 September, 2011 So what are you actually going to do about all this nawtyness then ?? Have you looked into exorcism ?? And in all honesty I would be interested for you to leave a noise recorder on and let us hear what happens. At the moment I just hide my face in the pillow and hope it goes away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 It is a code and stands up to every definition of it. It has basic building blocks which can produce certain elements. Eg, legs, teeth, claws, wings etc etc. Trying different combinations of these things results in all sorts of different creatures, some of which are suited to their habitat and thus survive, and others that aren't and they don't survive. So saying that DNA is a code created by an intelligence does not rule out evolution as such. It is just evolution based on intelligent design rather than Darwin's theory of evolution based on randomness. I realise that this is an infantile attempt to explain this, but if you're interested there are a lot better explanations out there on the web. Anyway...can we change subject and start listing links to real ghosts that have been posted on YouTube? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 At the moment I just hide my face in the pillow and hope it goes away. Hows that going ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettuce Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 I don't see why anyone should have to justify their beliefs about ghosts (or anything else for that matter) to some random Doctor Spock-wannabe internet warrior... However, in the interests of forum comedy, please continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 It is a code and stands up to every definition of it. It has basic building blocks which can produce certain elements. Eg, legs, teeth, claws, wings etc etc. Trying different combinations of these things results in all sorts of different creatures, some of which are suited to their habitat and thus survive, and others that aren't and they don't survive. So saying that DNA is a code created by an intelligence does not rule out evolution as such. It is just evolution based on intelligent design rather than Darwin's theory of evolution based on randomness. I realise that this is an infantile attempt to explain this, but if you're interested there are a lot better explanations out there on the web. Anyway...can we change subject and start listing links to real ghosts that have been posted on YouTube? I have heard a few before, I don't really believe them TBH, the problem is people are afraid to say that we are here because of a massive slice of luck, nothing more nothing less. If it was an intelligent being why would they stop on earth ?? Why would they create a massive universe and populate just one planet ?? Why wouldn't they make others, closer to us that could sustain life ? Also, Elements and compounds, surely they are codes as well, and building blocks, are they also created in this way ?? Its all to do with luck and random occurances I am afraid. And TBH there will be just as many google blogs denouncing that theory as there are in support. The fact is nobody really knows as we probably know around 10% of all there is in the scientific field, and the way science works one big discovery could destroy so many theories we thought were infallible. And yes, you can start posting youtubes if you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Here are some ghosts on youtube . MLG note the instruction to have an open mind and think outside the box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 The fact that you are told to "think outside the box" suggests that it probably isn't a load of invisible dead people walking around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 The fact that you are told to "think outside the box" suggests that it probably isn't a load of invisible dead people walking around. Yes. Didn't think of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 OK disbelievers, last night I was awoken by a huge bang on the bedside table at 4.05am, it then repeated itself once whilst I was awake followed by around ten tapping noises. Out of interest, do you owe anybody money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 6 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Out of interest, do you owe anybody money? Yes, I owe a ghost £20 after he beat me a darts down the pub a week last wednesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 6 September, 2011 Author Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Before you go to bed tonight Dog, stick Paranormal Activity on the telly, sit down with a triple-espresso (with some Pro Plus tablets for dunking) and a big wheel of Edam. You'll be fine, trust me. I am going to watch that film tomorrow night and see if ghosty comes out to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 (edited) Here are some ghosts on youtube . MLG note the instruction to have an open mind and think outside the box I think you should also consider how incredibly easy it is for even an amateur filmmaker to fake all of those things. Or just be innocently fooled themselves by natural events and genuinely believe it is a ghost when in fact it is something like the lighting, shadows etc from something easily explainable if they were to delve a little deeper. Watch this for something that looks like too elaborate to fake by an amateur filmmaker, but really is quite simple and has fooled many people... When watching a youtube video of a "ghost", before jumping to the conclusion "its a ghost", you have ask yourself... can this be faked and which is more likely, a camera trick or a ghost? Edited 6 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 I think you should also consider how incredibly easy it is for even an amateur filmmaker to fake all of those things. Or just be innocently fooled themselves by natural events and genuinely believe it is a ghost when in fact it is something like the lighting, shadows etc from something easily explainable if they were to delve a little deeper. Watch this for something that looks like too elaborate to fake, but really is quite simple and has fooled many people... You have ask yourself... which is more likely, a camera trick or a ghost? Yes I see your point, but I could tell these were fakes. I still think some of the other ones were unexplainable and therefore real ghosts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 I still think some of the other ones were unexplainable and therefore real ghosts. Which ones in that video? At what time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Why has no-one ever collected the James Randi million dollar challenge? http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 (edited) MLG - if God doesn't exist' date=' how do you explain DNA?[/quote'] So are you trying to say, because DNA is complicated it must have a designer? You have then just created an infinite regression, because by your own logic you are saying God is complicated, intelligent and thus must have a designer, and he must have a designer, and he must have a designer and so on... The argument goes something along these lines: All codes, languages, computer protocols etc have an intelligence behind them that devised the code in the first place. Codes don't just evolve from randomness.For example, experiments have been done with monkeys where they let them type randomly on keyboards to see if they produce anything legible. Of course, they don't. The chances of an ape randomly hitting keys and producing a legible sentence are practically zero. DNA’s definition as a literal code (and not a figurative one) is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960′s. Therefore, as with all codes, there must be an intelligent design behind it. This may or may not be "God" as we know God from the Bible, but an intelligent design none the less. Here is a link to the reasoning if you are so interested http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/ What you say about monkeys and typewriters is nonsense. No actual experiment as you describe has taken place, it is a concept to show that given enough time monkeys pounding on keyboards would create the complete works of Shakespeare. Or randomness can create something simply with a structure to it. If anything, it is the complete opposite of what you are trying to use it to support. Edited 6 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 So are you trying to say, because DNA is complicated it must have a designer? You have then just created an infinite regression, because by your own logic you are saying God is complicated, intelligent and thus must have a designer, and he must have a designer, and he must have a designer and so on... No, your logic is seriously flawed here. I am saying that DNA is a code. All codes have an intelligence behind them. Some one or thing designed them. Go figure. And try doing some background reading before you just dismiss an argument because your brain can't comprehend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 MLG still hasn't tried to answer me Teacher teacher, I still have my hand up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Examples of symbolic codes include music, blueprints, languages like English and Chinese, computer programs, and yes, DNA. The essential distinction is the difference between a pattern and a code. Chaos can produce patterns, but it has never been shown to produce codes or symbols. Codes and symbols store information, which is not a property of matter and energy alone. Information itself is a separate entity on par with matter and energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Proof that DNA was designed by a mind: (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern;it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence. We can explore five possible conclusions: 1) Humans designed DNA 2) Aliens designed DNA 3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously 4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information 5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God. (1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (3) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation in that it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing more than an appeal to luck . (4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (5) a theological one. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 No' date=' your logic is seriously flawed here.I am saying that DNA is a code. [b']All codes have an intelligence behind them. [/b] Some one or thing designed them. Go figure. And try doing some background reading before you just dismiss an argument because your brain can't comprehend it. What is the bold bit based on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 LOLz at the naivety and/or pig-ignorant skepticism from a few on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Proof that DNA was designed by a mind: (1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern;it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. (2) All codes we know the origin of are created by a conscious mind. (3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind, and language and information are proof of the action of a Superintelligence. We can explore five possible conclusions: 1) Humans designed DNA 2) Aliens designed DNA 3) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously 4) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information 5) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God. (1) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans. (2) could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. (3) may be a remote possibility, but it’s not a scientific explanation in that it doesn’t refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It’s nothing more than an appeal to luck . (4) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is (5) a theological one. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer. You have copied and pasted that from somewhere and I don't know what you are using it to say? If DNA has to have had a "designer" because it shows signs of intelligence in your eyes, who created the designer? You have started an infinite regression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 pig-ignorant skepticism Example of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 LOLz at the naivety and/or pig-ignorant skepticism from a few on here. So do you believe those ghosts in the Youtube video are real or not :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Example of this? I cannot be bothered to trawl back now, but I believe it was one of the ex-painted Cows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 MLG still hasn't tried to answer me What was your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 You have copied and pasted that from somewhere and I don't know what you are using it to say? If DNA has to have had a "designer" because it shows signs of intelligence in your eyes, who created the designer? You have started an infinite regression. Yes this is my point. You didn't even bother to read the link I posted earlier from which this was lifted. Also, just because your mind can't comprehend infinite regression, doesn't make your arguments any more worthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 So do you believe those ghosts in the Youtube video are real or not :-) I would say crabby is a believer. Oh and to MLG, if the infinate regression idea is stupid you must be of the camp that believes energy is able to just create itself then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Yes this is my point. You didn't even bother to read the link I posted earlier from which this was lifted. Also' date=' just because your mind can't comprehend infinite regression, doesn't make your arguments any more worthy.[/quote'] So are you now saying God had a creator? And the creator had a creator? And so on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 What was your question? #155 Basically no matter what your school syllabus tells you not everything has an answer, and a real scientist cannot dismiss anything out of hand. Questioning the reality we live in is what will keep us improving, saying thats how things are and anything else is just stupid is unfortunately not only a pig ignorant, arrogant but also incredibly unintelligent way of thinking and one I hope a teacher that could potentially teach my kids does not hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Oh and to MLG, if the infinate regression idea is stupid you must be of the camp that believes energy is able to just create itself then ? No, what I say is (along with the vast majority of the scientific community) is that I don't know why the universe began. What I'm not prepared to do is plug that gap in knowledge with a God of convenience for whom there is no evidence for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 (edited) #155 Basically no matter what your school syllabus tells you not everything has an answer, and a real scientist cannot dismiss anything out of hand. Questioning the reality we live in is what will keep us improving, saying thats how things are and anything else is just stupid is unfortunately not only a pig ignorant, arrogant but also incredibly unintelligent way of thinking and one I hope a teacher that could potentially teach my kids does not hold. I agree and this is a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science welcomes new ideas with open arms as long as they are supported with evidence. Religion however already claims to know all the answers and isn't open to change even in the face of evidence as it is often claimed to be the un-challengable word of God. If someone provides some good evidence for God or Ghosts I will look at it and consider its merits. If you do the same with for example the Catholic church on the use of condoms, they won't change no matter what you say or how much harm in the world it has caused. Edited 6 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 I agree and this is a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science welcomes new ideas with open arms as long as they are supported with evidence. Religion however already claims to know all the answers and isn't open to change even in the face of evidence as it is often claimed to be the un-challengable word of God. If someone provides some good evidence for God or Ghosts I will look at it and consider its merits. If you do the same with for example the Catholic church on the use of condoms, they won't change no matter what you say or how much harm in the world it has caused. I hold nothing back to the fact that I do not believe a single word that religion states, I appreciate its primitive attempt of principles no matter how prehistoric its implementation, what I do detest, as you say is the fact that religion will never ever take no for an answer. As for plugging gaps, I too fail to fall into the category of plugging the gaps in my knowledge with a god that probably doesn't exist however I do find myself at times saying to myself, well, what if ?? I mean as I said, energy cannot just create itself, and we live in a reality that we think is just constrained within finite mediums, and so energy could not just have 'always' been there, neither can it have created itself or else more or less every formulae I have ever learnt and used in Physics is more or less made redundant. Besides, as much as I don't really see there being a grand creator, I can almost see the merits of ghosts and yes, can see through my own thinking how they could possibly be real, and if I am honest, I think we have seen more 'evidence' no matter how fleeting on the existance of ghosts then we ever have of god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 I cannot be bothered to trawl back now, but I believe it was one of the ex-painted Cows Being laughed at by an adult that believes in invisible walking dead people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 I agree and this is a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science welcomes new ideas with open arms as long as they are supported with evidence. Religion however already claims to know all the answers and isn't open to change even in the face of evidence as it is often claimed to be the un-challengable word of God. If someone provides some good evidence for God or Ghosts I will look at it and consider its merits. If you do the same with for example the Catholic church on the use of condoms, they won't change no matter what you say or how much harm in the world it has caused. You have not considered the DNA argument for an intelligent design merit at all. You just keep blagging on about infinite loops You have also not given the real ghosts on Youtube videos full merit. There is a difference between organised religion, such as Catholicism, and keeping an open mind about whether or not there might be an intelligence higher than our own out there. In a way, you are no better than the religious guys, just at the other end of the spectrum. I bet you cream over Richard Dawkins books don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Being laughed at by an adult that believes in invisible walking dead people. Yep, I think I will get over it Scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 You have not considered the DNA argument for an intelligent design merit at all. You just keep blagging on about infinite loops To which you have no answer. You have also not given the real ghosts on Youtube videos full merit. Those videos are not good standalone proof. All that is in them can be easily faked. There is a difference between organised religion' date=' such as Catholicism, and keeping an open mind about whether or not there might be an intelligence higher than our own out there. In a way, you are no better than the religious guys, just at the other end of the spectrum.[/quote'] My mind is open to evidence, not unsubstantiated claims of bronze age scripture or youtube videos of "ghosts". I bet you cream over Richard Dawkins books don't you? Nope, I much prefer Christopher Hitchens (even though he is a Skate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 To which you have no answer. Those videos are not good standalone proof. All that is in them can be easily faked. My mind is open to evidence, not unsubstantiated claims of bronze age scripture or youtube videos of "ghosts". Nope, I much prefer Christopher Hitchens (even though he is a Skate). No I have no answer to infinite loops just like you don't. But I do try to examine all areas of possibility and not dismiss them out of hand. What are you going on about "bronze age scripture"? Don't understand. Do me a favour - suspend your long held beliefs and actually do some reading up on the other point of view. Don't just dismiss it out of hand because your small mind is unable to comprehend it (and I don't mean that in a disparaging way either). Start with the DNA one - I am not sure you even understand the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 (edited) I am not sure you even understand the argument. Based on what you said about monkeys and typewriters, I don't think you understand the difference between a theorem and an experiment and instead used it to support your argument when it actually does the opposite. For example' date=' experiments have been done with monkeys where they let them type randomly on keyboards to see if they produce anything legible. Of course, they don't. The chances of an ape randomly hitting keys and producing a legible sentence are practically zero.[/quote'] Why do you think DNA cannot be created through evolution from amino-acids to intelligent beings? On what do you base that? Edited 6 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Based on what you said about monkeys and typewriters, I don't think you understand the difference between a theorem and an experiment and instead used it to support your argument when it actually does the opposite. Why do you think DNA cannot be created through evolution from amino-acids to intelligent beings? On what do you base that? In the same way that monkeys will never be able to produce intelligible writing, DNA cannot be produced by unintelligent evolution. This is precisely my point. DNA is a code requiring intelligent design. The monkey argument was quality I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Here are some ghosts on youtube . MLG note the instruction to have an open mind and think outside the box If anything those cr@p videos confirm what a load of nonsense it is. Anyone with a real open mind would ask themselves why are these films always poor quality. Or why did the person not film the whole door being opened when there could obviously be string attached to the bottom. And more importantly, why are these ghosts always hanging around in the houses of bored teenaged yanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 If anything those cr@p videos confirm what a load of nonsense it is. Anyone with a real open mind would ask themselves why are these films always poor quality. Or why did the person not film the whole door being opened when there could obviously be string attached to the bottom. And more importantly, why are these ghosts always hanging around in the houses of bored teenaged yanks. ....because people want to believe the ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 (edited) In the same way that monkeys will never be able to produce intelligible writing' date=' DNA cannot be produced by unintelligent evolution. This is precisely my point. DNA is a code requiring intelligent design. The monkey argument was quality I thought.[/quote'] You still haven't understood the monkey/typewriter theorem. It does the opposite of what you think it does as it states that "given enough time, a hypothetical monkey typing at random would, as part of its output, almost surely produce all of Shakespeare's plays." It is a a metaphor (not an actual experiment as you claimed) for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters ad infinitum. The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Complete Works is so tiny that the chance of its occurring during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe is extremely low, but not zero. There is a chance it can happen. Edited 6 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 You still haven't understood the monkey/typewriter theorem. It does the opposite of what you think it does as it states that "given enough time, a hypothetical monkey typing at random would, as part of its output, almost surely produce all of Shakespeare's plays." It is a a metaphor (not an actual experiment as you claimed) for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters ad infinitum. The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Complete Works is so tiny that the chance of its occurring during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe is extremely low, but not zero. There is a chance it can happen. No I am not referring to some hypothetical theorem. I am referring to real live experiments conducted with monkeys which proved beyond doubt that they could never produce even 1 intelligible sentence let alone a work of Shakespeare. In the same way as evolution could never produce DNA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 (edited) No I am not referring to some hypothetical theorem. I am referring to real live experiments conducted with monkeys which proved beyond doubt that they could never produce even 1 intelligible sentence let alone a work of Shakespeare. In the same way as evolution could never produce DNA The theorem is famous. These "experiments" you talk about aren't. Plus I don't see what purpose they serve. The point is that give randomness enough time and seemingly complex or unlikely things are possible. Tossing a coin and getting 10 heads in a row seems unlikely and has poor odds but the important thing is - it can happen! 1/1024 chance of success Derren Brown did a similar thing, however what he didn't show you at first was the 9 hours of failed attempts. Even unlikely events happen given enough opportunities, same applies to monkeys, enough time and typewriters. Edited 6 September, 2011 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 6 September, 2011 Share Posted 6 September, 2011 Being laughed at by an adult that believes in invisible walking dead people. Better still - being laughed at by someone who has seen invisible, walking dead people...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now