Darwin and the toy universe

The claim is sometimes made that computer programs are going to solve the riddle of life's origin. Since this project doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon, people are going to have to find ways to analyze the claims and process.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'A “virtual primordial soup” cooks up life in a computer program in a “toy universe,” according to reporter Leslie Mullen at Space.com. She wrote, “The power of computer processing could one day solve the riddle of life’s origin.” [1.]

- An old Sf story by Jack Williamson featured a 'toy' planet that was used to demonstrate evolution. (Pygmy Planet/1931) What Williamson did analogically, Darwinists have now done digitally. (Or, pretended to do.) Computer animation is turning into the only 'proof' materialists have for the truth of evolution. The trouble is that these films don't simulate the origin of living things, they merely film someone's pet speculation. This is mythmaking pretending to be science.
We could compare this to someone making a film of the Genesis account, and then pointing to the film as evidence of creation.

- Ever wonder why we never hear of any of these 'simulations' disproving the theory of evolution? That these models end up showing what their designers want them to is about as surprising as hitting the button on a jack-in-the-box and having the jack pop up.
You turn the crank and the jester sings, ''me thinks it is a weasel." I can only hope that one day people will wake up to the fact they're being deceived. [By the way these mechanical toys go back to the ancient Greeks; as does the story about M2M evolution.]

Simulation;
Mid-14c., "a false show, false profession," from O.Fr. simulation, from L. simulationem (nom. simulatio) "an imitating, feigning," noun of action from simulare "imitate," from stem of similis "like" (see similar).

- The pretense is that these 'simulations' of evolution are the same as what has happened in the past. This is impossible for several reasons. Computer programs (the manipulation of 1s and 0s) are not the same as living organisms; not now, not ever. These people are trying to simulate what they imagined happened hundreds of millions of years ago, or more. They have no way of knowing what it is they're even trying to simulate. At the very best we see simulations of theory; animated theory if you will.

B. 'EvoGrid is “a computer creation concept that would be a digital version of the primordial soup,” wrote Mullen.' [2.}

- This supposed recreation of early earth is about as meaningful as a digital version of the Mars we find in the novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs.

- Watching Dr. Who will give you a better idea of the future than these programs will give you a true picture of the past. (Yes; I'm sure it's a lot of fun; but it's not biology and it's not science.)

- These programs bear about as much relationship to reality as a spinning top does to a planet.
- Serious scientists investigating the real world, or children playing in a sandbox?

C. 'He [Damer] has visions of expanding EvoGrid into versions tuned for astrobiology and SETI. He did not explain how a programmer can do tuning without any guiding human influence. But he didn’t stop there; he wants biologists of the future to translate his digital organisms into real creatures. Then he wants to create cyber-physical life forms that can colonize other planets.

- In other words, he wants to play god. (This is like something out of science fiction; bad science fiction.) Has this clown thought about the profound implications of creating life forms, and especially of creating intelligent life forms? (If such a thing is possible.) I doubt it; and I doubt he's capable of it.

Isn't it interesting that the same people who deny that God could have created living organisms, are thinking of doing the same thing themselves. How does that work?
I guess God can't be God, but human beings can? God can't be creator, but man can?

Notes;
1. Origin-of-Life Researchers Caught Playing With Toys: Creation/Evolution Headlines 07/07/2009
2. 'It was “dreamed up by a group of international advisors and Bruce Damer, the founder of a research company that creates 3-D spacecraft and mission simulations for NASA and the space community.”
3. Jack in the box;
'Another theory as to the origin of the jack-in-the-box is that it comes from the 13th century English prelate Sir John Schorne, who is often pictured holding a boot with a devil in it. According to folklore, he once cast the devil into a boot to protect the village of North Marston in Buckinghamshire. This theory may explain why in French, a jack-in-the-box is called a "diable en boîte" (literally "boxed devil"). - wiki
- I'll let you make up your own comment.