to/for the believers(those who believe,of course), how far will you go for your
conviction?will death, pain, desruction, etc. stand between you and your
faith/belief?
A few centuries ago, death would have meant nothing for those who really
believed, but now, there aren't so many believers. I'm not sure i could bear
pain or death, maybe i'm not enough of a believer but...still makes me wonder
what is waiting for me after death. I KNOW God exists, but still...
I sort of view it like "You can try to force your beliefs on me but you
better bring alot more people, they better be alot bigger than me, and they
better be prepared to lose limbs. Even then theres no guarantee that I wont get
to you before they get to me"
Seriously, I have no idea. The extent of one's convictions cannot be truely seen
without real situations. While ordinary Christians have gave their lives for the
faith, and continue to be persecuted in some parts of the world today, (I heard
that they are in North Korea)
remembering the story of the apostle Peter, I do not wish to claim to be capable
of anything beyond my means.
I decided to make a religiousity scale to aid in this thread. It goes from
not-so-religious to fanatical.
1. Hrm...Maybe those agnostics are on to something! How can you really be
certain?
2. God is probably a decent guy, but I wouldn't break an appointment to meet
him...
3. Eh, I'll remain a believer as long as there isn't a commandment against
alcoholism or internet porn.
4. You want me to go to church? But it's boring and the pews are so
uncomfortable. If god wanted me to goto church he'd have made the week an hour
longer.
5. Well technically I haven't "read" the bible....but I get the gist
of it.
6. Yay God! Boo Science! "Evidence" is the tool of the devil!
Scientists are goddless heretics attempting to destroy society!
7. Jokes about my religion upset me. Also, this "scale" is
sacriligious and offensive! I condemn you to hell!
8. Sure, I'll wage a crusade/jihad against the infidels! Where's my machete and
webcam?
9. I just bought a bomb belt from amazon.com...only 19.99?! What a deal!
10. I have a gas chamber in my backyard and I'm about to rent a U-haul truck.
God will really love me now!
I do know that you hate religion, and you love Darwinian interpretation of
evolutionary biology, Plunkies, but keep mindless scorn to yourself. The Darwinian
Fundamentalism you have displayed in the tread "Why
can't science and god go together?" is in itself a symptom of
conviction in a belief. The result of conviction to a certain belief depends on
what the belief entails. Strong conviction in Materialistic beliefs, for
example, can lead to a loss
in the perception of the value of a human life.
Quote by Persocom01I do know that you
hate religion, and you love Darwinian interpretation of evolutionary biology,
Plunkies, but keep mindless scorn to yourself. The Darwinian
Fundamentalism you have displayed in the tread "Why
can't science and god go together?" is in itself a symptom of
conviction in a belief. The result of conviction to a certain belief depends on
what the belief entails. Strong conviction in Materialistic beliefs, for
example, can lead to a loss
in the perception of the value of a human life.
Strong conviction in Religious beliefs, for example, can lead to a loss of a
sense of humor.
And if by Darwinian Fundamentalism you really mean owning you in every argument
you've ever had with me, then yes, I agree.
Since you obviously fall into category 6 then how can you call it mindless
scorn? It clearly has practical applications. Did you fail to recognize the
irony in your post?
Oh and one last thing, "loss in value of a human life"? By believing
in an afterlife you lose value of your current life. Look at you, you're
throwing a tantrum over a joke. Maybe if people weren't too busy believing in a
perfect eternity in the afterlife they'd make their limited time on Earth count
for something.
Quote by PlunkiesBy believing in an
afterlife you lose value of your current life.
Interesting
theory but can you prove it. Unless you are someone who believes their life has
no value how would that apply?
Quote by PlunkiesMaybe if people weren't
too busy believing in a perfect eternity in the afterlife they'd make their
limited time on Earth count for something.
First let me say,
I really hope eternity isn't perfect that'd be way to boring. I think the
imperfections in life are what makes it challenging and fun.
So are you saying save the world or be someone who listens when someone has a
problem and helps that one individual. Both count for something and happen
everyday (well maybe not saving the world but who knows) with both religious and
non-religious people. Thats quite the wide brush you are painting with (to use
the analogy) as I am sure you realize. Many religions even promote helping those
less fortunate than you and quite a few people do take that message to heart.
Quite a few aid organizations have their foundations in religious organizations
(not all but many). So I'd think a little before making a statement like that
again.
I hope that if the times comes there will nothing that overcomes my faith. I
can't ever seeing myself deny my saviour but you don't know until that moment.
Still, there is account after account of believers facing horrible situations,
even in recent years, and when that time came God gave them the grace to not
only bear it but be loving in the midst winning over even their persecutors
because of their love.
Quote by PlunkiesI was simply stating
people tend to believe stronger in their religion at the expensive of thier
sense of humor and ability to have fun.
Ahh, I see teh balance issue. I have to agree with you there. Far to many people
take themselves far to seriously and don't live their lives to the fullest
Quote by PlunkiesSince you obviously
fall into category 6 then how can you call it mindless scorn? It clearly has
practical applications. Did you fail to recognize the irony in your
post?
You fail to see the validity in the other side of the argument. If you want me
to classify you on your scale you would fall under category 6.
I find it ironic that you can use an obvious object of intelligent design (the
computer) and at the same time claim as fact that life came from purely random
processes. Unless you can prove that you can build working computers by randomly
stirring and heating a mixtures of silicon I find your philosophy completely
unreasonable.
Quote by Persocom01You fail to see the
validity in the other side of the argument. If you want me to classify you on
your scale you would fall under category 6.
The scale doesn't cover me. I'm below one. An atheist doesn't fit onto the scale
of religiousity, but good try anyway. I know it's hard for you to understand
things with your warped sense of reasoning.
Quote: I find it ironic that you
can use an obvious object of intelligent design (the computer) and at the same
time claim as fact that life came from purely random processes. Unless you can
prove that you can build working computers by randomly stirring and heating a
mixtures of silicon I find your philosophy completely
unreasonable.
Time and time again you prove that you have absolutely no understand of
evolution. It's not one gigantic chance but billions of small chances working
toward a common goal (survivability). You'd think after arguing against it for
so long you might at least have a limited knowledge of it.
And it's not really ironic since the computer evolved through different designs
and creations. Also computers aren't organic. Also god didn't create computers,
people did. I suppose if you were arguing that humans created life themselves it
might be acceptable...
Really, do you have no convictions at all? Does being an Atheist make you
unbiased? Your conviction in Atheism approaches (or is) religious
fundamentalism, enough to make you blind to other people's arguments and enough
to empower you to make ignorant statements like:
Quote by PlunkiesThere is NO, I repeat
NO, NONE, ZIP, ZERO evidence that contradicts evolution and a great deal of
evidence that supports it and more evidence continues to pile
up.
Which can be quoted as an excellent example of blind faith.
"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of
the believer." - Albert Einstein
If you think I lack a sense of humor I find the above quote very funny and very
true.
Quote by Persocom01Really, do you have
no convictions at all? Does being an Atheist make you unbiased? Your conviction
in Atheism approaches (or is) religious fundamentalism, enough to make you blind
to other people's arguments and enough to empower you to make ignorant
statements like:
I like how instead of making your beliefs out to be intelligent you'd rather
bring atheism and science down to your level of ignorance.
Quote: Which can be quoted as an
excellent example of blind faith.
How is a fact blind faith?
Quote: "The bigotry of the
nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer." -
Albert Einstein
If you think I lack a sense of humor I find the above quote very funny and very
true.
Yeah that's as funny as a tumor. Thanks for proving my point.
guys, forget something? the title/subject of this thread is, READ:...for the
believers!.(i meant religion right there.)^_^ and time and again, YOU SHOULD
RESPECT OTHER'S POINT OF VIEW.
I'd say I'm pretty fanatical. 3+8+10. It only comes out around vegans and
wiccans though, especially the wiccans that just loooove putting all the pagan
religions into one nice little bowl of lucky charms fertilised by a menstrating
Epona. Disrespect the Aesir with your moonbat religion will you? Just wait until
I wrap you around that tree you're hugging, hippy!
Those bastards ruined long hair too, while we're at it.
hehe.....
nice thread you got here... But i suggest reminding them about going back to the
topic will work more effectively :P
I will state my stand here now (about the arguement)
I am totally with plunkies about being religious actually causes us to lose our
sense of humour or something similar...
the evidence is so clear in front of your eyes,
to make it simple..
1.plunkies post a joke
|
2.religious guy criticise him for being bias and hate religion
|
3.plunkies gave his reasons
|
4.religious ppl gone for those "pick on his words" tactics and also
"humiliate" him by confusing others about his background
thing...
and this somehow leads to blind faith and the stands of being
artheist....
I salute the genius to this....lolx
anyway... i kinda think that being an arthiest is simply like an evolution of
"we don't want to believe something from mouth and don't force us to
believe"
into
"that does it, I am going to hate you by NOT BELIEVING"
the only reason of that happening is due to religious ppl forgetting
something
which is
"we dun need to choose whether to believe or not, WHY IN THE WORLD do we
NEED TO HAVE A STAND IN THIS"
back to the topic...
I am not a believer but in cases like being force to do the opposite of what i
believe in and there is no going back from it, I will choose Death...
If you intend to joke you should be sensitive to the feelings of others, lest
you incite ill-will. Racist jokes for example, are banned in the publications of
some countries. You may like blonde jokes but will you tell them to a blonde you
are dating? Joking about anyone's convictions is a sure way to incite ill-will.
If you study the Singaporean law, it takes a rather strong stand on this issue
to preserve racial and religious harmony.
"I attacked the foundations of morality in Erewhon, and nobody cared two
straws, I tore open the wounds of my Redeemer as he hung upon the Cross in The
Fair Haven, and people rather liked it. But when I attacked Mr. Darwin they were
up in arms in a moment."
- Samuel Butler, Evolution Old and New, 1879, p. 54.
I would not find jokes about religion funny, neither would Plunkies find jokes
about evolution funny. Also, it does nothing to promote intellectual debate.
hmm... thats good...
u admit that you cant joke about something which proves plunkies
right...
however, if you tends to think aggressive against someone like that it will
often end up with open conflicts. Why not think about try to tell them properly
that you are offended first? I remember some words from your religion that you
should love ur enemy and it closely relates to this...(ack... need to remember
stuffs)
btw... i think jokes are needed to be understood as are religions... because
they often show truths about how ppl truly thinks.... then is the time you think
about what should be changed to change how ppl think, taking the forward offence
wont usually change something... our life is complicated and everything else is
too... but the paths are many to choose... so choose wisely to gain and all will
be fine...^^
Hmm... I don't get what you are saying. If you are saying that Plunkies is right
that religion causes a loss of humor, no that's not true. We just find different
things funny. I find his arguments funny. For example:
Quote by PlunkiesAnd it's not really
ironic since the computer evolved through different designs and
creations.
Despite the proven presence of an intelligent designer, he still tries to
justify the computer as a product of evolution. Note that he can't even avoid
using the word design and creation. I find his logic funny as from this school
of thought, almost all change can be called evolution. I changed my method of
studying as I think method b is better. Therefore my study method has evolved. I
want to laugh, really, but it is probably perfectly sensible to him. For more on
this issue:
"Darwin's followers rely on homologies to arrange fossils in branching
trees that supposedly show ancestor descendant relationships. In his 1990 book,
Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, biologist Tim Berra compared the fossil
record to a series of Corvette models: "If you compare a 1953 and a 1954
Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent
with modification is overwhelmingly obvious."
But Berra forgot to consider a crucial, and obvious, point: Corvettes, so far as
anyone has yet been able to determine, don't give birth to little Corvettes.
They, like all automobiles, are designed by people working for auto companies.
In other words, an outside intelligence. So although Berra believed he was
supporting Darwinian evolution rather than the pre-Darwinian explanation, he
unwittingly showed that the fossil evidence is compatible with either. Law
professor (and critic of Darwinism) Phillip E. Johnson dubbed this :
"Berra's Blunder."" - The American Spectator - December 2000 /
January 2001
Also note that all the complex software that we use today, from the Windows
operating system to auto-pilot programs are designed by humans. Evolutionary
algorithim has so far been unable ro evolve an artificial intelligence that
surpasses human intellect. (or even evolve a program that most people will rely
on) The relevance of this fact is that so far, the universal law that complexity
cannot beget increased complexity is unbroken.
lolx... so many evidence... do you mind if i point out why the whole idea of
evolution is wrong that living things can also deevolve or maintain a specific
status?
definition to evolution: a change to adapt much better in an enviroment is
practically what evolution means
so, if a habitat maintain its current posture with no harm nor changes to
creatures which had adapted to it, the creature within will not have the motive
to change itself as it is already suited in it.
However if given another creature which has gills which is not needed in that
specific enviroment, the gills might deevolve into nothing because of its
non-application.
So what Darwin actually prove is the tendency to change of living form.
Plunkies basically use this as a reference toward a human's tendency to change,
our technology evolves as we does because we improves with more knowledge passed
down from our elders. gaining information counts as a sort of evolution don't
you think?
also i want to note that thought we created computers, we didnt make them to
reproduce themselves and evolve through reproduction, therefore, computers
cannot be used as a reference in "god create human and sparks evolution
thingy" however i must admit that " computers can evolve" is true
but with "along with human's evolution of knowledge and skills"
following the previous statement...
Certainly, but computers can be used as proof that it is possible that an
outside intelligence designed us just as we designed computers. Also, even if we
made computers capable of reproduction, we are currently unable to prove that
they can evolve into anything that surpasses human interllect. This follows the
universal rule: Order begets order. And order tends to disorder and not the
other way around.
As yourself this: You want to write a novel. Is it likely that you will get a
good novel by adding words to it from a random word generator? Or is it more
likely that you will get a good novel by planning it yourself? This is the
universal rule: That order begets order.
Also ask yourself this: You start with a message. You whisper it into the ear of
a friend who does the same to another friend and this process goes on until it
reaches you. It it likely that the message could have improved since you let it
go around? More likely it's distorted. This is the other universal rule: Order
tends to disorder and not the other way around.
There is a great deal of scientific debate about whether it is possible for
entirely new structures to come about just from: "a change to adapt much
better in an enviroment". Think about it also. A pack of sheep constantly
chased by wolves adapts to run faster. But will they ever fly? Will they ever
start living in the water instead? Will a group of fish you keep exposing to dry
land develop lungs? Or legs? Whether this is possible cannot be proven by
observable science, and a great deal of evidence suggests that it is even
impossible.
Do your own research. Darwin put forward a theory. He didn't prove it. And it
remains a topic of debate till today. The problem is that Plunkies persistently
denies that there is even a scientific debate on this issue.
Also humans gaining information isn't proof of evolution because we cannot prove
that we can gain information to the extent that we become smarter than our
designer. (assuming there is one) You can program a computer to teach itself but
can you program a computer to teach itself to think in a way superior to you?
to/for the believers(those who believe,of course), how far will you go for your conviction?will death, pain, desruction, etc. stand between you and your faith/belief?
A few centuries ago, death would have meant nothing for those who really believed, but now, there aren't so many believers. I'm not sure i could bear pain or death, maybe i'm not enough of a believer but...still makes me wonder what is waiting for me after death. I KNOW God exists, but still...
I sort of view it like "You can try to force your beliefs on me but you better bring alot more people, they better be alot bigger than me, and they better be prepared to lose limbs. Even then theres no guarantee that I wont get to you before they get to me"
Seriously, I have no idea. The extent of one's convictions cannot be truely seen without real situations. While ordinary Christians have gave their lives for the faith, and continue to be persecuted in some parts of the world today, (I heard that they are in North Korea) remembering the story of the apostle Peter, I do not wish to claim to be capable of anything beyond my means.
I decided to make a religiousity scale to aid in this thread. It goes from not-so-religious to fanatical.
1. Hrm...Maybe those agnostics are on to something! How can you really be certain?
2. God is probably a decent guy, but I wouldn't break an appointment to meet him...
3. Eh, I'll remain a believer as long as there isn't a commandment against alcoholism or internet porn.
4. You want me to go to church? But it's boring and the pews are so uncomfortable. If god wanted me to goto church he'd have made the week an hour longer.
5. Well technically I haven't "read" the bible....but I get the gist of it.
6. Yay God! Boo Science! "Evidence" is the tool of the devil! Scientists are goddless heretics attempting to destroy society!
7. Jokes about my religion upset me. Also, this "scale" is sacriligious and offensive! I condemn you to hell!
8. Sure, I'll wage a crusade/jihad against the infidels! Where's my machete and webcam?
9. I just bought a bomb belt from amazon.com...only 19.99?! What a deal!
10. I have a gas chamber in my backyard and I'm about to rent a U-haul truck. God will really love me now!
I do know that you hate religion, and you love Darwinian interpretation of evolutionary biology, Plunkies, but keep mindless scorn to yourself. The Darwinian Fundamentalism you have displayed in the tread "Why can't science and god go together?" is in itself a symptom of conviction in a belief. The result of conviction to a certain belief depends on what the belief entails. Strong conviction in Materialistic beliefs, for example, can lead to a loss in the perception of the value of a human life.
Strong conviction in Religious beliefs, for example, can lead to a loss of a sense of humor.
And if by Darwinian Fundamentalism you really mean owning you in every argument you've ever had with me, then yes, I agree.
Since you obviously fall into category 6 then how can you call it mindless scorn? It clearly has practical applications. Did you fail to recognize the irony in your post?
Oh and one last thing, "loss in value of a human life"? By believing in an afterlife you lose value of your current life. Look at you, you're throwing a tantrum over a joke. Maybe if people weren't too busy believing in a perfect eternity in the afterlife they'd make their limited time on Earth count for something.
ppl... please don't insult or mock someone's point of view/belief just because yours is the contrary... should respect them y'know.^_^;
Interesting theory but can you prove it. Unless you are someone who believes their life has no value how would that apply?
First let me say, I really hope eternity isn't perfect that'd be way to boring. I think the imperfections in life are what makes it challenging and fun.
So are you saying save the world or be someone who listens when someone has a problem and helps that one individual. Both count for something and happen everyday (well maybe not saving the world but who knows) with both religious and non-religious people. Thats quite the wide brush you are painting with (to use the analogy) as I am sure you realize. Many religions even promote helping those less fortunate than you and quite a few people do take that message to heart. Quite a few aid organizations have their foundations in religious organizations (not all but many). So I'd think a little before making a statement like that again.
I was simply stating people tend to believe stronger in their religion at the expensive of thier sense of humor and ability to have fun.
I hope that if the times comes there will nothing that overcomes my faith. I can't ever seeing myself deny my saviour but you don't know until that moment. Still, there is account after account of believers facing horrible situations, even in recent years, and when that time came God gave them the grace to not only bear it but be loving in the midst winning over even their persecutors because of their love.
Ahh, I see teh balance issue. I have to agree with you there. Far to many people take themselves far to seriously and don't live their lives to the fullest
You fail to see the validity in the other side of the argument. If you want me to classify you on your scale you would fall under category 6.
I find it ironic that you can use an obvious object of intelligent design (the computer) and at the same time claim as fact that life came from purely random processes. Unless you can prove that you can build working computers by randomly stirring and heating a mixtures of silicon I find your philosophy completely unreasonable.
The scale doesn't cover me. I'm below one. An atheist doesn't fit onto the scale of religiousity, but good try anyway. I know it's hard for you to understand things with your warped sense of reasoning.
Time and time again you prove that you have absolutely no understand of evolution. It's not one gigantic chance but billions of small chances working toward a common goal (survivability). You'd think after arguing against it for so long you might at least have a limited knowledge of it.
And it's not really ironic since the computer evolved through different designs and creations. Also computers aren't organic. Also god didn't create computers, people did. I suppose if you were arguing that humans created life themselves it might be acceptable...
Really, do you have no convictions at all? Does being an Atheist make you unbiased? Your conviction in Atheism approaches (or is) religious fundamentalism, enough to make you blind to other people's arguments and enough to empower you to make ignorant statements like:
Which can be quoted as an excellent example of blind faith.
"The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer." - Albert Einstein
If you think I lack a sense of humor I find the above quote very funny and very true.
I like how instead of making your beliefs out to be intelligent you'd rather bring atheism and science down to your level of ignorance.
How is a fact blind faith?
Yeah that's as funny as a tumor. Thanks for proving my point.
guys, forget something? the title/subject of this thread is, READ:...for the believers!.(i meant religion right there.)^_^ and time and again, YOU SHOULD RESPECT OTHER'S POINT OF VIEW.
I'd say I'm pretty fanatical. 3+8+10. It only comes out around vegans and wiccans though, especially the wiccans that just loooove putting all the pagan religions into one nice little bowl of lucky charms fertilised by a menstrating Epona. Disrespect the Aesir with your moonbat religion will you? Just wait until I wrap you around that tree you're hugging, hippy!
Those bastards ruined long hair too, while we're at it.
hehe.....
nice thread you got here... But i suggest reminding them about going back to the topic will work more effectively :P
I will state my stand here now (about the arguement)
I am totally with plunkies about being religious actually causes us to lose our sense of humour or something similar...
the evidence is so clear in front of your eyes,
to make it simple..
1.plunkies post a joke
|
2.religious guy criticise him for being bias and hate religion
|
3.plunkies gave his reasons
|
4.religious ppl gone for those "pick on his words" tactics and also "humiliate" him by confusing others about his background thing...
and this somehow leads to blind faith and the stands of being artheist....
I salute the genius to this....lolx
anyway... i kinda think that being an arthiest is simply like an evolution of
"we don't want to believe something from mouth and don't force us to believe"
into
"that does it, I am going to hate you by NOT BELIEVING"
the only reason of that happening is due to religious ppl forgetting something
which is
"we dun need to choose whether to believe or not, WHY IN THE WORLD do we NEED TO HAVE A STAND IN THIS"
back to the topic...
I am not a believer but in cases like being force to do the opposite of what i believe in and there is no going back from it, I will choose Death...
If you intend to joke you should be sensitive to the feelings of others, lest you incite ill-will. Racist jokes for example, are banned in the publications of some countries. You may like blonde jokes but will you tell them to a blonde you are dating? Joking about anyone's convictions is a sure way to incite ill-will. If you study the Singaporean law, it takes a rather strong stand on this issue to preserve racial and religious harmony.
"I attacked the foundations of morality in Erewhon, and nobody cared two straws, I tore open the wounds of my Redeemer as he hung upon the Cross in The Fair Haven, and people rather liked it. But when I attacked Mr. Darwin they were up in arms in a moment."
- Samuel Butler, Evolution Old and New, 1879, p. 54.
I would not find jokes about religion funny, neither would Plunkies find jokes about evolution funny. Also, it does nothing to promote intellectual debate.
hmm... thats good...
u admit that you cant joke about something which proves plunkies right...
however, if you tends to think aggressive against someone like that it will often end up with open conflicts. Why not think about try to tell them properly that you are offended first? I remember some words from your religion that you should love ur enemy and it closely relates to this...(ack... need to remember stuffs)
btw... i think jokes are needed to be understood as are religions... because they often show truths about how ppl truly thinks.... then is the time you think about what should be changed to change how ppl think, taking the forward offence wont usually change something... our life is complicated and everything else is too... but the paths are many to choose... so choose wisely to gain and all will be fine...^^
Hmm... I don't get what you are saying. If you are saying that Plunkies is right that religion causes a loss of humor, no that's not true. We just find different things funny. I find his arguments funny. For example:
Despite the proven presence of an intelligent designer, he still tries to justify the computer as a product of evolution. Note that he can't even avoid using the word design and creation. I find his logic funny as from this school of thought, almost all change can be called evolution. I changed my method of studying as I think method b is better. Therefore my study method has evolved. I want to laugh, really, but it is probably perfectly sensible to him. For more on this issue:
"Darwin's followers rely on homologies to arrange fossils in branching trees that supposedly show ancestor descendant relationships. In his 1990 book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, biologist Tim Berra compared the fossil record to a series of Corvette models: "If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious."
But Berra forgot to consider a crucial, and obvious, point: Corvettes, so far as anyone has yet been able to determine, don't give birth to little Corvettes. They, like all automobiles, are designed by people working for auto companies. In other words, an outside intelligence. So although Berra believed he was supporting Darwinian evolution rather than the pre-Darwinian explanation, he unwittingly showed that the fossil evidence is compatible with either. Law professor (and critic of Darwinism) Phillip E. Johnson dubbed this : "Berra's Blunder."" - The American Spectator - December 2000 / January 2001
Also note that all the complex software that we use today, from the Windows operating system to auto-pilot programs are designed by humans. Evolutionary algorithim has so far been unable ro evolve an artificial intelligence that surpasses human intellect. (or even evolve a program that most people will rely on) The relevance of this fact is that so far, the universal law that complexity cannot beget increased complexity is unbroken.
lolx... so many evidence... do you mind if i point out why the whole idea of evolution is wrong that living things can also deevolve or maintain a specific status?
definition to evolution: a change to adapt much better in an enviroment is practically what evolution means
so, if a habitat maintain its current posture with no harm nor changes to creatures which had adapted to it, the creature within will not have the motive to change itself as it is already suited in it.
However if given another creature which has gills which is not needed in that specific enviroment, the gills might deevolve into nothing because of its non-application.
So what Darwin actually prove is the tendency to change of living form.
Plunkies basically use this as a reference toward a human's tendency to change, our technology evolves as we does because we improves with more knowledge passed down from our elders. gaining information counts as a sort of evolution don't you think?
also i want to note that thought we created computers, we didnt make them to reproduce themselves and evolve through reproduction, therefore, computers cannot be used as a reference in "god create human and sparks evolution thingy" however i must admit that " computers can evolve" is true but with "along with human's evolution of knowledge and skills" following the previous statement...
my 20 cents
Certainly, but computers can be used as proof that it is possible that an outside intelligence designed us just as we designed computers. Also, even if we made computers capable of reproduction, we are currently unable to prove that they can evolve into anything that surpasses human interllect. This follows the universal rule: Order begets order. And order tends to disorder and not the other way around.
As yourself this: You want to write a novel. Is it likely that you will get a good novel by adding words to it from a random word generator? Or is it more likely that you will get a good novel by planning it yourself? This is the universal rule: That order begets order.
Also ask yourself this: You start with a message. You whisper it into the ear of a friend who does the same to another friend and this process goes on until it reaches you. It it likely that the message could have improved since you let it go around? More likely it's distorted. This is the other universal rule: Order tends to disorder and not the other way around.
There is a great deal of scientific debate about whether it is possible for entirely new structures to come about just from: "a change to adapt much better in an enviroment". Think about it also. A pack of sheep constantly chased by wolves adapts to run faster. But will they ever fly? Will they ever start living in the water instead? Will a group of fish you keep exposing to dry land develop lungs? Or legs? Whether this is possible cannot be proven by observable science, and a great deal of evidence suggests that it is even impossible.
Do your own research. Darwin put forward a theory. He didn't prove it. And it remains a topic of debate till today. The problem is that Plunkies persistently denies that there is even a scientific debate on this issue.
Also humans gaining information isn't proof of evolution because we cannot prove that we can gain information to the extent that we become smarter than our designer. (assuming there is one) You can program a computer to teach itself but can you program a computer to teach itself to think in a way superior to you?