Chess master says intelligent design featured large in his initial literature search

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 11, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

But rushes to admit: “There’s no direct connection to my work, but some of the mathematical ingredients are the same.’”

= I poach ideas I then disown?

Comments

Transitional fossils exist only in the fertile minds of the Darwin faithful. By ignoring the data, forcing, and in some cases manually reshape the puzzle pieces, evolutionists create imaginary links connecting species etc when in reality no transitional link exists. There is no concrete evidence, imagination, faith and wishful thinking dont count, that a species has ever become another species ala macro evolution. What we do have are the remains of certain creatures that lived and died leaving a story, no not the mythical fairy tales darwinists tell their children, for us to uncover.humbled_{June 13, 2014
June
06
Jun
13
13
2014
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Chess is for kids. Adults playing it just raises the memory competence of moves and other moves. its hogwash to see board games as anything related to intellectual pursuits. the big thing is about this is the great flaw of not segregating the memory from the thinking being. Computers can play chess because no thinking is involved. they really don't think. tHey just have search engines searching for memorized moves to deal with moves. Video games are no less difficult. just fewer adults play them. this is case in point for modern errors about the human intellect relative to animals and machines. Its strange to see this flaw continue.Robert Byers_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT}

One more thing, Crun, to take up the example you gave earlier, it is much more likely that the designers initially wanted to create fishapods and got the idea to design tetrapods afterwards. One thing begets the other. This is the way design works and it is the way it has always worked.Mapou_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Crun, from what we know about intelligent design, designs evolve over time. Their complexity also increases over time. We see this trend in all the artificial products we, human designers, have designed and built over the years. Deny at your own detriment.Mapou_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Mapou, I have to disagree with you. Why would a designer bother with transitionals? Surely an intelligent designer wanting to make tetrapods would just make the tetrapods. Why bother with the fishapods?Henry Crun_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Intermediate fossils are not evidence against intelligent design. In fact, from what we know about design over time, it would be be extremely unlikely if no such fossils existed.Mapou_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

I'm afraid its you that's missing the point. The Tiktaalik find is well documented and it's open to anyone else to go in the footsteps of the Chicago researchers and find their own fossils. And since you put any evidence that supports evolution down to fraud and deceit, clearly you are only concerned with protecting your own bankrupt viewpoint. Science is beyond your capabilities. I think there is little point in taking this further.Henry Crun_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

"Hardly a failed prediction since they found the fossil they predicted!" I think you're missing the point mate. Finding a fossil, inventing an imaginary scenario for it, getting an artist to misrepresent what Tiktaalik actually looked like and forcing it to fit the mythical tree of life sounds a siren loud and clear. It shows to what lengths the darwin-faithful will go as well as the highly imaginative and pure speculation based nature of this pseudo-scientific religiously motivated theory. "What do you think they did, wandered the Canadian Arctic on a whim?Accidentally stubbed thief toe on it whilst mincing around in the cold?" Too be honest, and factoring in past and present history, failed predictions, peer review fraud the list goes on, Darwinists have ZERO credibility. It seems to me that, for them, anything goes, lying for Darwin... "Come on, Humbled – let’s see the ID fossil collection." Come now Henry Crun, you are attempting to deflect. We are talking about the religion of Darwinian Evolution, stay focused please.humbled_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Nobody (at least nobody who knows what she/he is talking about) claims Tiktaalik is the direct ancestor of the Tetrapoda. It is one of a number of Devonian sarcopterygians closely related to tetrapods and classified together with them in Tetrapodomorpha; it gives us some idea of what the actual ancestor may have looked like -- and that's about it. The Middle Devonian trackways from Poland are not accompanied by any skeletal remains, so it's hard to tell if they were left by "true" tetrapods, or to what extent the animals that left them were terrestrial (feet with digits appeared before their owners ventured ashore). We can only hope that their bones will be found sooner or later. Tetrapodomorps and lungfish must have separated by the Early Devonian anyway, since we have stem lungfishes (Diabolepis, Youngolepis) more than 400 My old.Piotr_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

Humbled @ 12, Hardly a failed prediction since they found the fossil they predicted! What do you think they did, wandered the Canadian Arctic on a whim?Accidentally stubbed thief toe on it whilst mincing around in the cold? Come on, Humbled - let's see the ID fossil collection.Henry Crun_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Indeed. But more likely is: Fish species N >>>>Fishapod species 1, 2.....W....X.....Z where the Fishapod species will have a lot of inherited characteristics from N but naturally selected modifications do there will be slight differences from each other. Then, Fishapod W>>>>>tetrapods Fishapod X>>>>>line eventually dies out but Tiktaalik is a fossil of X. And that also shows why Tiktaalik can be younger than some tetrapods: it's line doesn't die out until after tetrapods evolve. It is a closely related cousin of the ancestor of tetrapods rather than a direct ancestor. And yes, it may involve geographical separation of species.Henry Crun_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Humbled @ 12
Tiktaalik cannot be a transitional form between fish and tetrapods if tetrapods existed prior to Tiktaalik!
Why not? It could go: Location1: Fish >>> Fishapod1 >>> Tetrapod1 Location2: Fish >>>>>>>much later>>>>>>> Tiktaalik >>> Tetrapod2 Couldn't it?CLAVDIVS_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Henry Crun, Tiktaalik isn't helping your case mate. Tiktaalik cannot be a transitional form between fish and tetrapods if tetrapods existed prior to Tiktaalik! Like so many other supposed transitional forms touted in scientific circles and the press (think Archaeopteryx and Ida), Tiktaalik is a dead end. Tiktaalik is yet another failed evolutionary prediction. If this were any other theory, one not protected by the darwin faithful, it would have been discarded ages ago.humbled_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

Tiktaalik was found out of place. The fossil record now shows fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods. That isn't how the sequence should be. BTW ID is not anti-evolution. Even baraminology accepts descent with modification. IOW if the public knew tat Darwin argued against a strawman, and that strawman still lives today, they would have a better understanding of what is really being debated. People can accept evolution without accepting evolutionism and Common Descent.Joe_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Humbled, the fact that evolution theory was used to find Tiktaalik fossils is strong supporting evidence for the theory. Let's see you do that using ID.Henry Crun_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

"...the evidence for evolution is overwheling", Henry Crun, darwinian religious convictions, faith, indoctrination, job security, financial incentives etc one side, I fail to see how any intelligent and widely read man would agree with this statement. Also, many of us are still waiting, some more than others, for this so called "overwhelming evidence" we keep hearing about. Some of us have even taken courses in an attempt to find such evidence only to be left under whelmed and even more convinced it's all codswallop.humbled_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

News @ 2, That's pure paranoia. The most likely explanation is that this is an intelligent and widely read man who understands the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.Henry Crun_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT}

Checkmate!Henry Crun_{June 12, 2014
June
06
Jun
12
12
2014
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

Robert, I am just guessing here. But, you were never good at chess, were you?Acartia_bogart_{June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

Chess is just a game. Its not a intellectual study. i know some try to say chess is a high intellectual game but in fact all it does is use our memory. every move is part of a memorized plan based on previous moves and games. Chess is no more intellectually demanding then riding ones bike. if smarter people get involved in chess then it just raises the amount of memorization that is needed. in fact this is why i remember back in the ,80,s and since every now and then some dumb kid becomes a chess PRODIGY. They are in fact just showing a kids concentration of memory to things most kids don't care about. cjess is not anything more then a card game. In fact computers play chess. Yet don't have a clue or thought about it. Its just memory and this shows a flaw in peoples thinking about human thinking.Robert Byers_{June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

In this letter, Ken Regan seems to be describing his personal beliefs as that of a fideist. As far as I can tell, he accepts Darwinian evolution as the best explanation of events within a universe designed by God.
(3 Jan 2008) I've narrowed it a little further than the standard definition of "fideist". My gamut of "grounds for credence", with Truth at the top as the goal, runs: Proof [which Godel showed falls short of Truth even in simple math] K1: Reproducible Knowledge (i.e., "hard science") K2: Experiential Knowledge (interfaces with K1 via the "Problem of Induction") K3: Modeling (interfaces with K1 via Occam's Razor) Faith Intuition Emotion (Gardner and the Bible.org items treat this too) The standard definitions of fideism seem to deny all possible knowledge of God, but I think K2 and K3 are possible---indeed I think I've had a taste of them. So I reject only "Proof" and "K1"---if I could redefine the term, I'd define a fideist as "someone who does not rely on God as a scientific hypothesis." Practical ramifications: I never promise someone he/she will "experience God today", I avert things on the slope toward "snake-handling", I reject Dawkins' and Victor Stenger's framework, and when Alister McGrath (in /The Dawkins Delusion/) criticizes the Intelligent Design /enterprise/ /for/ "trying to prove the existence of God" I'm right there with him, despite my being a Christian in the same math field as William Dembski who agrees with ID at the level of cosmology. My "MORE RESTRICTED DEFINITION" of "fideism" may even be compatible with Catholic teaching, 1998's Fides-et-Ratio and all; indeed it may be "just another rediscovery of Orthodoxy" a-la Chesterton. Hence I tried making up words "anapodeixist" or "adeixist" with Greek roots meaning "non-proof", "non-empirical-demo", but the former got a nose-wrinkle from my wife while the latter sounds too much like "atheist" :-).
rhampton7_{June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

Of related note: At the 11:50 minute mark of this following video 21 year old world Chess champion Magnus Carlsen explains that he does not know how he knows his next move of Chess instantaneously, that ‘it just comes natural’ to him to know the answer instantaneously. Mozart of Chess: Magnus Carlsen – video http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399370n&tag=contentMain;contentAux A chess prodigy explains how his mind works – video Excerpt: What’s the secret to Magnus’ magic? Once an opponent makes a move, Magnus instantaneously knows his own next move. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57380913-10391709/a-chess-prodigy-explains-how-his-mind-works/?tag=segementExtraScroller;housing This ability to 'instantaneously' know answers to complex problems has long been a very intriguing characteristic of some autistic savants; Is Integer Arithmetic Fundamental to Mental Processing?: The mind's secret arithmetic Excerpt: Because normal children struggle to learn multiplication and division, it is surprising that some savants perform integer arithmetic calculations mentally at "lightning" speeds (Treffert 1989, Myers 1903, Hill 1978, Smith 1983, Sacks 1985, Hermelin and O'Connor 1990, Welling 1994, Sullivan 1992). They do so unconsciously, without any apparent training, typically without being able to report on their methods, and often at an age when the normal child is struggling with elementary arithmetic concepts (O'Connor 1989). Examples include multiplying, factoring, dividing and identifying primes of six (and more) digits in a matter of seconds as well as specifying the number of objects (more than one hundred) at a glance. For example, one savant (Hill 1978) could give the cube root of a six figure number in 5 seconds and he could double 8,388,628 twenty four times to obtain 140,737,488,355,328 in several seconds. Joseph (Sullivan 1992), the inspiration for the film "Rain Man" about an autistic savant, could spontaneously answer "what number times what number gives 1234567890" by stating "9 times 137,174,210". Sacks (1985) observed autistic twins who could exchange prime numbers in excess of eight figures, possibly even 20 figures, and who could "see" the number of many objects at a glance. When a box of 111 matches fell to the floor the twins cried out 111 and 37, 37, 37. http://www.centreforthemind.com/publications/integerarithmetic.cfm Gifted people being able to instantaneously know answers to complex problems is also something that argues forcefully against the notion that our minds are merely the 'emergent' products of molecules in motion; Electrical genius Nicola Tesla was born in Serbia in 1856,,, his father was a clergyman. Excerpt: While walking in Budapest Park, Hungary, Nikola Tesla had seen a vision of a functioning alternating current (AC) electric induction motor. This was one of the most revolutionary inventions in the entire history of the world. http://www.reformation.org/nikola-tesla.html The boy in this following video rivals, or surpasses, Nikola Tesla as an example of innovative ideas coming fully formed to the mind without any need for trial and error: Bluejay: The Mind of a Child Prodigy – video http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7186319n The following video gives deep insight into how serious the problem of 'knowledge acquisition' is to the worldview of atheistic materialism: Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in description of video) https://vimeo.com/92387854 It is interesting to note that although Alan Turing believed humans were merely machines, much like the computers he had envisioned, failed to realize that his idea for computers came to him suddenly, 'in a vision', thus confirming Godel's contention that humans had access to the 'divine spark of intuition'. A divine spark which enables humans to transcend the limits he, and Turing, had found in his incompleteness theorem for computers, mathematics, and even for all material reality generally (S. Jaki). also of note: Do the New Atheists Own the Market on Reason? – On the terms of the New Atheists, the very concept of rationality becomes nonsensical – By R. Scott Smith, May 03, 2012 Excerpt: If atheistic evolution by NS were true, we’d be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we do know many things. So, naturalism & atheistic evolution by NS are false — non-physical essences exist. But, what’s their best explanation? Being non-physical, it can’t be evolution by NS. Plus, we use our experiences, form concepts and beliefs, and even modify or reject them. Yet, if we’re just physical beings, how could we interact with and use these non-physical things? Perhaps we have non-physical souls too. In all, it seems likely the best explanation for these non-physical things is that there exists a Creator after all. http://www.patheos.com/Evangelical/Atheists-Own-the-Market-on-Reason-Scott-Smith-05-04-2012?offset=1&max=1bornagain77_{June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Yes, but so? Is he saying that the theory of evolution "featured large in his initial literature search" or is he just sucking up to Darwin's trolls? Yes, scary world out there.News_{June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

In the same paragraph:
As a serious Christian he sometimes gets asked if he believes in the theory of evolution, which he does.
Reciprocating Bill_{June 11, 2014
June
06
Jun
11
11
2014
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply