You are mistaken. Intelligent Design *already* explains, correctly, the process behind the creation of artificially intelligent software, self-replicating machines, computer viri, etc.
Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry
You are mistaken. Intelligent Design *already* explains, correctly, the process behind the creation of artificially intelligent software, self-replicating machines, computer viri, etc.
Should Bibles and prayer be allowed in schools outside of science classes?
What has that got to do with what is taught in science classes?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!
ID/IOT explains nothing. Ever. That is why it exists.
You are mistaken. Of course, you are welcomed and encouraged to show another theory *besides* Intelligent Design to explain how artificially intelligent software was formed, or how computer viri were made, or how self-replicating machines were built, etc.
Not that you can...
Are you in such a need of a boogy man to oppose that you fail to see the difference between those of us who have nothing against Christianity, we just don't want children taught false science. We believe in the truth, and Newdow and his ilk have nothing to do with it.
I believe that this ID stuff has the potential to do great damage to Christianity. Science and the elite classes have ignored religion for years. But ID is picking a fight with them and they are reacting. Can Christianity handle genuine attacks? And I mean genuine attacks, not just eliminating prayer in schools.
What happens when professors actively challenge the faith of students? How many will reject their faith under such direct attacks? Some will, for sure.
Christians are provoking this issue. Not the other way round. I'm afraid this will do great damage to Christianity. If I were genuinely against God and religion, I would keep my mouth shut and let the damage occur. But I genuinely support what Christians are doing, and I don't want to see the carnage that will result in this war of faith.
Christians will lose. Big time.
No, they are the result of calculations, not estimates. First of all, they represent an upper bound on the mass loss (not change in size) a star can undergo during the "life" of a star. That calculation comes from the maximum energy conversion available via the various nuclear reactions that take place in a star such as the sun, and would only be that large if the entire supply of hydrogen in the sun were fused into heavier nuclei, which can't happen because most of the hydrogen in the star lies in regions outside of the fusion reaction zone. Most stars switch to helium burning after about 10% of the hydrogen is fused, which for the sun should be in about another 5 billion years.
The point is that the mass change of a star such as the sun is exquisitely small, and hence the change in gravitation is also minute.
What is difficult to understand is that if you are interested enough in the subject to have formulated "your own hypothesis" that stars are burning fuel like giant furnaces, why didn't you do some simple research on the subject on the internet to discover that hypothesis could not possibly be true? The text book I cited for you gives a wonderful discussion of the arguments that refute all sources of energy in stars (including chemical reactions, as you proposed) as being adequate other than fusion reactions.
Thanks for your link. The topic is of interest and I'll save it for future reference.
But it doesn't explain biological processes, and that's what we're talking about here.
The sun HAD to be larger. It's on fire!
What specifically makes you claim that?
Tell me when scientific evidence was in 'opposition'.
[besides, that is, to darwinite beliefs.]
And in science classes you can learn that precision and accuracy are not the same.
Big fire in sky. Oook, oook!
And these people want to decide what gets taught in science classes.
Sci/Tech
Biological computer prototype unveiled
The model shows how a biological computer could work
By BBC News Online Science Editor Dr David Whitehouse
A large-scale prototype of a computer that could be smaller than a living cell has been designed by an Israeli scientist.
Some scientists believe that, in the future, small biological computers could roam our bodies monitoring our health and correcting any problems they may find.
The prototype has been developed by Professor Ehud Shapiro of the Computer Science Department at the Weizmann Institute of Science.
![[ image: Ehud Shapiro hopes new biotechnology will make his computer possible]](http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/370000/images/_370035_biocomp150.jpg) |
| Ehud Shapiro hopes new biotechnology will make his computer possible |
In terms of the logic on which it operates, the prototype will behave in a similar way to molecules inside a living cell, a "biomolecular machine".
A living computer
Each cell of our bodies is a collection of machines made out of biological molecules. These molecules can form pulleys and gears to move other molecules around the cell.
Some molecules have the ability to assemble and take apart other molecules. Others gather small molecules and use a template to construct new molecules.
In a sense, each of our cells is a complicated city of biological machines all working together.
It is possible that a future biomolecular version of Professor Shapiro's device could lead to the construction of computers, smaller than a single cell, and with the ability to monitor and modify them.
Math give precision, but only answers the question asked. No one can ask the question needed to settle the question of abiogenesis, because no one knows what steps are necessary and sufficient. No one assumes that DNA and proteins just poofed into existence in one step, and no one (yet) knows the steps necessary. And no one knows if these steps lead naturally to each other. We do know it is possible to synthesize self-replicating molecules that are much less complex that proteins and DNA. This doesn't solve the problem, but it suggests the universe is inherently biased towards self-replication.
No, I'm afraid you don't realize what a real attack against faith would be. I don't know, but it would not surprise me if Newdow was motivated by opposition to ID. He is only the beginning.
Christians are doing the provoking here. This will not be pretty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.