First Complete Computer Model of an Organism

[1over137]

Enjoy http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091451.htm.

Comments?

[sandy_mcd]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7412007763

It's a big step towards computer modelling, but much work needs to be done. There is so much biological data available today that it is extremely difficult or impossible for intelligent agents to comprehend it. So some means of of utilizing computers to integrate it all is necessary. [And no, it doesn't prove design.]

[Byblos]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7412007763

It's a big step towards computer modelling, but much work needs to be done. There is so much biological data available today that it is extremely difficult or impossible for intelligent agents to comprehend it. So some means of of utilizing computers to integrate it all is necessary. [And no, it doesn't prove design.]

I like your disclaimer Sandy. It is virtually impossible for intelligent agents to comprehend current biological data without the aid of sophisticated computers, designed and created by said intelligent agents. But please let no one dare infer intelligent design.

[FlawedIntellect]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7412007763

It's a big step towards computer modelling, but much work needs to be done. There is so much biological data available today that it is extremely difficult or impossible for intelligent agents to comprehend it. So some means of of utilizing computers to integrate it all is necessary. [And no, it doesn't prove design.]

It doesn't disprove design either. So, in any case, it is CURRENTLY difficult for intelligent agents to comprehend it, but hey, eventually people will be able to look at the big picture, and understand it.

So really, this is nothing to say other than that humans don't know everything, but can learn a lot.

[sandy_mcd]

It doesn't disprove design either. So, in any case, it is CURRENTLY difficult for intelligent agents to comprehend it, but hey, eventually people will be able to look at the big picture, and understand it.

So really, this is nothing to say other than that humans don't know everything, but can learn a lot.

Good point. I never meant to claim that it disproved design. I think design is impossible to disprove; it can't be falsified.

But do you think there is no limit to what the human brain can comprehend? Sadly, mine is all too limited. But just as I don't think any human will run a 1 second 100 meters, i think there are many systems too complicated for humans to fully comprehend.

[RickD]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7412007763

It's a big step towards computer modelling, but much work needs to be done. There is so much biological data available today that it is extremely difficult or impossible for intelligent agents to comprehend it. So some means of of utilizing computers to integrate it all is necessary. [And no, it doesn't prove design.]

I like your disclaimer Sandy. It is virtually impossible for intelligent agents to comprehend current biological data without the aid of sophisticated computers, designed and created by said intelligent agents. But please let no one dare infer intelligent design.

Byblos, that's because you assume computers were created by a designer. Given trillions of years, why couldn't modern computers have evolved from the things they are made of? Metals and plastics are found in the earth. Those metals and plastics could certainly have evolved over trillions of years, to become intelligent supercomputers we have today. We certainly have proof of intermediate, or early computers. Look at the abacus, for example. An abacus clearly shows the early stages of the evolution of computers. Originally, abacuses were beans or stones moved in grooves in sand or on tablets of wood, stone, or metal. Beans, stones, wood and metals are all naturally occurring in nature. There's no evidence of design there. Only weak religious people who can't deal with reality, see intelligent beings in the creation of something that clearly evolved from something in nature. It seems people will go to any lengths to justify a God, who clearly doesn't exist. Just because something has a form of intelligence, that doesn't mean it had to be created by an intelligent being. You Christians are always assuming that intelligence assumes an intelligent creator.

[1over137]

Sometimes I wonder who has bigger faith. If Christians who believe in God, who always was and created our world or atheists who think it is by chance (very small one). (Am probably off-topic now.)

[Gman]

Enjoy http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 091451.htm.

Comments?

Hey everybody we just used our intelligence and highly sophisticated computers (ID) to create the world's first complete computer model of an organism.

Do these knuckle heads realize that this silly statement promotes ID?? Maybe they could get a job at the Discovery center..

[Gman]

Oh it's from Stanford.... No wonder...

[Byblos]

Sometimes I wonder who has bigger faith. If Christians who believe in God, who always was and created our world or atheists who think it is by chance (very small one). (Am probably off-topic now.)

May be off topic but very appropriate. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist (Norman Geisler).

[sandy_mcd]

Do these knuckle heads realize that this silly statement promotes ID?? Maybe they could get a job at the Discovery center..

Why don't any of these knuckle heads realize that this silly statement promotes ID?
Why aren't the Discovery center and BioLogic Institute contributing to any of this research? Not only would they have the advantage of starting with the correct model of design, surely they aren't knuckle heads?
Why are all the knuckle heads performing the actual research the least likely to realize the implications?

[Gman]

Do these knuckle heads realize that this silly statement promotes ID?? Maybe they could get a job at the Discovery center..

Why don't any of these knuckle heads realize that this silly statement promotes ID?
Why aren't the Discovery center and BioLogic Institute contributing to any of this research? Not only would they have the advantage of starting with the correct model of design, surely they aren't knuckle heads?
Why are all the knuckle heads performing the actual research the least likely to realize the implications?

Now, now sandy mcd. Calm down, don't panic... Like I was saying before, scientific research will in a way always reveal some need for ID. In a way, they prove it without the ID advocates having to do much. Don't look at me for their kindergarten mistakes...

[RickD]

Gman wrote:
Don't look at me for their kinder-garden mistakes...

Tell me Gman, does a " kinder-garden" make for happy vegetables?

I think you meant to say, kindergarten. But I won't tell.

[Gman]

Gman wrote:
Don't look at me for their kinder-garden mistakes...

Tell me Gman, does a " kinder-garden" make for happy vegetables?

I think you meant to say, kindergarten. But I won't tell.

You mean Kindergarten? Of course..

[1over137]

Why calling it kindergarten mistakes? Are all reasons just kindergarten mistakes?

P.S.: I do not like mocking in the God and Science part of the G&S forum. This part may be of interest of many nice unbelieving people.