On Chess
Yes I saw that movie last year, I really enjoyed it but then again I am a chess head. I was logged in chessclub.com during game two and it's true that the computer played a very un-computer like move on move 37. Kasparov said IBM cheated as they never provided the computers log, but they did, and it is here
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/c.html
Kasparov was expecting Deep Blue (playing white) to (evenutally) grab a pawn with 37. Qb6 , but such a move was not optimal.
Instead Deep Blue continued 37.Be4.
The IBM logs (see above) show that Deep Blue calculated
37.Qb6 Rxa2 38.Rxa2 Bc7 39.Qe6+ Kh8 40.Be4 and now
40...Rb8 41.Ra6 Qd8 42.d6 Bb6+
40...Ra8 41.Kh2 Rb8 42.g3 Qf8
40...Qf8
41.Kh1 Bd6 42.Ra6 Rd8 43.Ra7
37.Be4 Rcb8 38.g3 Qd8 39.Kg2 (39. Ra6 Rxa6 40. Rxa6 Bc7 41. Rxf6) 39...Rxa2 40.Rxa2 Bc7 41.Qa7 Bb6 42.Qa6 Qd7
So Deep Blue played 37. Be4.
Unless there is a major coverup going on at IBM, they do not appear to have cheated. What's more, if I get my Dell pentium 4 to analyse the position it starts with 37. Qb6 but soon sees the error of it's ways and changes to 37. Be4. I don't think IBM cheated.
Kasparov resigned a bit later on after 45. Ra6. A few hours after the match, Bruce Moreland, the author of the Ferret Program (which he never released yet the bar steward!) reported on chessclub.com that the game was a draw by perpetual check after 45 ... Qe3. For someone like Kaspy resigning in a drawn position was too much and I don't think he ever recovered from game 2. To date.
Which is sad. Because I am a human and not a computer (most of the time).
On genes
Q1. Sorry not familiar with introns and exons either !
Q2. I think cross speciation is a whole lot more possible than people think, gardeners know this, and the human genome isn'tthat much more complicated than a plants (surprisingly)
Q3. No I don't think he precludes an "intelligent designer"
Note: Question: Who designed the law of Gravity?
The last part about evolution being in geology, well I guess that in the fossil record we (and British Petroleum) see lots of types of creatures that no longer exist, but how do we know that the current flora/fauna found on Earth evolved from them?
On Sproul
That announcer makes the whole thing seem like a joke! It's like "Welcome to McDonalds, Have a nice day".
RC is preaching to the converted, you have to believe to bother listening. He clearly doesn't care for how Jews, Muslims and Sikhs believe. Or anyone that doesn't believe in Christianity. He is very dismissive of the other "isms".He recognizes "atheism" as something, a "thing", which it really isn't. The hole in the polo mint isn't really anything, it's just the lack of a polo mint at that point in spacetime.
I don't tie skepticism to paganism (RC lumps them together).
He then goes onto say that there was a time the Universe did not exist, which is not necessarily true if you take the expanding and collapsing ball approach I mentioned in a previous append. He then asks "What started it?" - But does not address the question "What started God?" The questions could have the same answer could they not RC?
Then he talks about flat spacetime local phenomena such as inertia in relation to the Big Bang. A common mistake.
I do not believe that religious people should attempt these types of pseudo-scientific arguments,I believe that they should stick to scripture and not get hung up with science. One doesn't need any proof to believe, one just needs to believe. I choose to believe.
I believe that we should believe because we make the decision that we want to believe, it really doesn't matter what we believe, we all get to die so then we'll find out. Just be sure to treat others as you wish to be treated on the journey.
.
To RC - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from miracles".
No comments:
Post a Comment