Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The inspiration is evident in the exaltation of natural processes alone.
He's not. He is the cause.
The full comprehension of all that the infinite God is cannot be reduced to an equation formulated by His own finite creation. That a flawed human being would demand such reveals a bit of hubris on our part, does it not?
Do you complain about IT techs, electricians, or firefighters relying only on natural processes?
Then you can't complain about scientists not incorporating God into their equations.
So when an AI chess computer trains itself to play chess without any human intervention bar telling it the rules of chess, and the end product is a knowledge of strategic and tactical chess play way beyond the best human players, did the knowledge come from God or learnt by AI?
Not in the least. But I do cheerfully encourage them to give glory where glory is due. Their eternal fate hinges upon it.
Who is complaining? Just challenging. Just as I pray the children from kindergarten to college are doing in the face of relentless indoctrination to fantasy conclusions based on so-called iron-clad science.
Then why does it bother you when scientists operate the same way?
Ok.
What are you challenging?
That would be meaningful if you knew much about how those conclusions were reached, but I suspect you don't.
Okey doke then. Here we go into the tired who-do-you-think-you-are routine. When you decide to get back to addressing the OP, perhaps I'll re-engage.
Another fundamentalist who doesn't like to discuss what they say.
Do you believe God is directly responsible (as in created) every genetic sequence that's existed?
I guess I'll stay then.
It's to cold to post w/o clothes.
I don't see why not. No being without firing synapses has ever been demonstrated to have a thought.
Communication requires *two* or more persons. Communicating in the common form of expression takes learning. Fortunately our brains are well primed to learn language.
The cumulative knowledge of a society is just that -- cumulative and of a society. If you could survive without others, then you could go out on your own and gather your own knowledge through experience and observation. (No accounting for accuracy though), but frankly it is more efficient to build upon the accumulated knowledge of a society.
As science has shown, long-term memories form during sleep by making new *connections* between neurons. Those don't require more volume.
what "original teacher"?
It is unlikely our last single celled ancestor was an amoeba, nor that any eukaryotic single-celled organism "crawled out of the goo". MOST animals today do not have anything directly like our language they do just fine. (Chemical and behavior signals do exist for many animal and even plant species.)
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
There is no evidence for 'design' in nature. (The rest is preaching.)
So why engage a non-scientist? Is it worth the effort for you to attempt to persuade your inferiors? What exactly is your motivation, Hans? Just curious...
Amen to that. 23° F. here.
And yet sperm manages to find egg, imagine that!
Yes, but my point is, why does one self-sufficient self-fed brain *need* another brain's input to increase it's own knowledge? For such massive physical capabilities - why does it operate as a big "duh" upon emerging from the womb? Why is Evolution failing to pass down all of it's stored knowledge to it's progeny? Not such an awesome "natural" process after all, is it?
Yes, but again, why the need for co-dependency? As superlative and worthy of exaltation as the human brain is, why for example, didn't one ancient man look around at the available elements and create a computer? He has all the physical components in his brain to do so - and the brain is the source of its own knowledge, right? So why the delay?
The first humans capable of thought and speech. Who taught them? Please don't say observation alone.
So what is the current fad these days amongst evolutionary theorists? The salamander? The eggplant? I confess I don't closely monitor each re-writing of the theory.
Ah... now you're opening an area ripe for discussion - the curiously intelligent instincts of the animal world. Perhaps that deserves its own thread - so I'll table it for now.
Ok.
*stunned silence*
Where did you get your PC? You bought it? What was the delay? Why didn't you make one twenty years ago?
The ability to think happened a very long time time before humans came onto the scene. And asking who taught someone to think is like asking who taught them to breathe. I don't want to be rude, but it's a silly question.
I want to discuss science and pseudoscience. That is why I am here. Biology is not my field, but I seem to know more about it than what you have presented.
Chemical signals. It's all chemical signals, even the nerves communicate with each other by chemical signals.
Because it isn't about the brain hardware, but the accumulated knowledge of society. What you seem to need here is to read on the history of science and technologies. It would be enlightening to your inquiry.
The pre-humans also had thoughts and communication. Just look at how our primate cousins communicate.
The "ooze" is some strawman impression of abiogenesis. If you're going to make these attacks, you should at least learn how they are done.
You forgot to quote *stunned silence*
Evolution passes on the capacity for knowledge .. not the knowledge itself.
The more elements there are, the more rapid the development of other elements will be. The increase is exponential.
Utterly missing the point, Brad. Why didn't the human brain house all knowledge from the very beginning? How was it possible that all knowledge and the necessary elements to create a computer, as one wee example, already existed - just waiting to be discovered? To maintain that it was just so for no reason at all takes a lot more faith than to credit a massive pre-existent Intelligence. And this knowledge has been handed down piecemeal from the mind of God to man all along.
There are contemporary records available from that time you can reference? Do tell. I know my reference Book, what's yours?
Here's an even sillier question. Why *are* you breathing? Why do your lungs expand and contract without being instructed to by your thoughts? What caused your first breath, and what will determine your last?
Ok. Its a nice gift to have to be able to express oneself in various ways, isn't it? Who should we give credit to for that as well? Random processes of chance origin? Or One Who expresses Himself likewise - in Whose image we are created?
You're not seriously suggesting that the complexities of language we employ have their source in a series of grunts and moans, are you? If so, then how did Thor convince Moe to agree to identify a rock as "blrgzzzt"? And why did it evolve to "rock"? Wasn't "blrgzzzt" good enough?
Apparently it does.
What is this, tag team night?
I did not forget. I'm not interested in your preaching. (or anyone else's)
