"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
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.sandy_mcd wrote: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.sandy_mcd wrote: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.]
Good point. I never meant to claim that it disproved design. I think design is impossible to disprove; it can't be falsified.FlawedIntellect wrote: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.
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.Byblos wrote: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.sandy_mcd wrote: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.]
Hey everybody we just used our intelligence and highly sophisticated computers (ID) to create the world's first complete computer model of an organism.
No wonder...May be off topic but very appropriate. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist (Norman Geisler).1over137 wrote: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.)
Why don't any of these knuckle heads realize that this silly statement promotes ID?Gman wrote:Do these knuckle heads realize that this silly statement promotes ID?? Maybe they could get a job at the Discovery center..
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...sandy_mcd wrote:Why don't any of these knuckle heads realize that this silly statement promotes ID?Gman wrote:Do these knuckle heads realize that this silly statement promotes ID?? Maybe they could get a job at the Discovery center..
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?
Tell me Gman, does a " kinder-garden" make for happy vegetables?Gman wrote:
Don't look at me for their kinder-garden mistakes...
You mean Kindergarten? Of course..RickD wrote:Tell me Gman, does a " kinder-garden" make for happy vegetables?Gman wrote:
Don't look at me for their kinder-garden mistakes...
I think you meant to say, kindergarten. But I won't tell.
