Customer Discussions > Science forum

An Open Intelligent Design Challenge

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 5:24:44 PM PDT
"The non-theistic view suggests that it all just fell together. How likely does that seem? "

I think that creationists should stop just trying to attack biology, but also demand equal time in physics and chemistry. After all "god did it all" can explain all of it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 6:07:33 PM PDT
noman says:
RE: KLW says: "...This represents the concept of foreknowledge on a grand scale. And just as Dawkins has denied it. The non-theistic view suggests that it all just fell together. How likely does that seem?"

**Having only one universe to look at it's rather difficult to calculate the odds, just as it's difficult to draw a line with only one point. Or, rather, with only one point you have an infinite number of possible lines. The only possible answer for this is "Not enough data to work with...I don't know."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 6:33:37 PM PDT
Mr. Alpine,

Physics Geek is quite correct in saying, "A theory is not proven true. It has failed to be proven wrong. It is also not a fact."

You have not, I think, taken a course in hypothesis testing or experimental methods. When you do, you will learn that experiments typically compare an "experimental hypothesis" (what the experimenter wishes to test) against a "null hypothesis" (what would be the case if the other is not true); properly phrased, experimental results either support, or fail to support, the null hypothesis. To those of us not familiar with the ideas, "support for the null hypothesis" means that the experimental hypothesis was not "proven." Two other notions supplement Physics Geek's comments: (1) in science, every hypothesis is provisional, i.e. considered true until contrary evidence or a better hypothesis arises (why else construct an experiment?); (2) "proof" is not a scientifically useful concept; the statistical methods used in science are inferential and the method used to arrive at hypotheses is deductive; "proof" is for mathematicians and logicians.

My apologies if I have, inadvertently, offended by slipping into my condescending voice -- something I do way too easily.

I hope you will take the courses I've mentioned. You will find that they strongly modify how you think, and in very beneficial ways. It seems to me you've got a very good start.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 8:53:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 24, 2012 8:55:41 PM PDT
Physics Geek..

I think the argument was completely lost on you..

DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern. DNA is not just chemistry, it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. If you can cite one, please do. Therefore DNA was designed by a mind. This is the essence of the ID world view.

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be." - Albert Einstein

Have a nice day...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 9:03:23 PM PDT
<<there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. If you can cite one, please do.>>

Well, evolution comes to mind. Is this supposed to be hard?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 9:07:13 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
Not at all.

I actually understand some of the chemistry that DNA adheres to. I also know many people who understand a lot more. It is necessary and sufficient to explain why the molecule acts the way it does. There is no requirement for a "god" to exist an manipulate it. One is also not required to form it originally. While the exact process is not know, it is perfectly possible.

But on to your classic logical fallacy. And by "classic" I mean often abused.

"All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information. If you can cite one, please do"

Your argument is I don't know anything therefore god did it.

Your argument is called an argument from ignorance. It is not allowed in any scientific discussion. At least you didn't call ID a scientific theory. Its not. This discussion has reached its second page and no one has provided a single scientific definition to ID. the closest anyone has come is to make assertions and arguments from ignorance.

This is a common theme. Me thinks it looks like a weasel.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dawkins_weasel

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2012 11:04:36 PM PDT
Re Einsteins brain, 7-24 8:53 PM: "All codes are created by a conscious mind ..." This is wrong. The DNA code was created by evolution -- specifically, natural selection. And, from the point of view of evolution, whether it is a code or not is simply immaterial: the whole business is just chemistry.

"there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information." Except for evolution, which does exactly that.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 12:50:42 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jul 25, 2012 12:56:00 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 1:23:22 AM PDT
David Félix says:
Uh. Yes. Ethanol uses symbols. It does NOT use chemistry. Ethanol uses four symbols: C, H, O, and -, just as English uses 26 symbols: A, B....X, Y, Z.
Ethanol is a language that transcends chemistry.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 1:28:38 AM PDT
Ethanol does not use symbols. Ethanol is chemistry. Under the right conditions, you will always obtain ethanol. There is redundancy. There is no code contained in the formula for ethanol. DNA is NOT redundant.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 1:31:20 AM PDT
noman says:
RE: "Kevin Knobbe says:
Uh. Yes. DNA does use symbols. It does NOT use chemistry. DNA uses four symbols: G, A, T, and C, just as English uses 26 symbols: A, B....X, Y, Z.
DNA is a language that transcends chemistry."

**Oh my...I would like to thing you're being funny. Sadly, I'm afraid you are not.

DNA Tutorial
http://www.dnatutorial.com/

Introduction to DNA Khan Academy
http://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/v/dna

Undergraduate Biology MITOpencourseware
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/

Learn Genetics Univ. Utah
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/tour/

SUMMARY: " DNA does use symbols. It does NOT use chemistry."

**I can not possibly provide a better summary.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 1:33:42 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 1:43:05 AM PDT
noman says:
RE: "Kevin Knobbe says:...DNA is NOT redundant."

**
Evolution 101
Molecular Evidence 2: DNA Functional Redundancy

http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/04/molecular-evidence-2-dna-functional.html

****
Chromosomes, Chromatin, DNA Replication and Repair

"...Base Pairing: Adenine and thymine always bond with each other (A-T), while guanine and cytosine always bond to each other (G-C). Because of this relationship, one strand completely specifies the complementary strand and one strand is used to specify the other in replication. This complementary relationship provides a redundancy in the DNA which reduces the chance for error...."

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cbbc/courses/bio4/bio4-1997/03-DNA&Chromosomes.html

****
DNA redundancy: Genetic sequence copies are more prevalent and important than thought
http://scitechstory.com/2010/10/31/dna-redundancy-genetic-sequence-copies-are-more-prevalent-and-important-than-thought/

SUMMARY: do you even know what any of the words you're using mean?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 1:47:01 AM PDT
noman says:
RE: "Kevin Knobbe says:
You provided no summary. Just links to stuff I already know."

1) you do not understand sarcasm
2) you do *not* "already know" anything provided in the links or you could not possibly post the things you have.

SUMMARY:
TROLL or appallingly ignorant.

And, IGNORE. This is simply painful to read.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 1:50:29 AM PDT
David Félix says:
DNA does not use symbols. DNA is chemistry. Under the right conditions, you will always obtain DNA. There is redundancy. There is no code contained in the formula for DNA.

Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 1:58:20 AM PDT
David Félix says:
Also, if G is a "symbol", is 2-aminohypoxanthine also a "symbol"? What about C5H8N5O, is it also a "symbol"? If C5H8N5O is a "symbol", why is C2H6O not also a "symbol"?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 2:22:54 AM PDT
Ad hominem. Calling me an appallingly ignorant troll wont get you very far. Try presenting some specific facts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 2:31:09 AM PDT
David Félix says:
"Ad hominem. Calling me an appallingly ignorant troll wont get you very far."

Let's put "logical fallacies" next to "DNA" in the list of things you seem to know little about.

"Try presenting some specific facts."

He did. Try tackling them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 2:38:25 AM PDT
Thank you for a somewhat serious response. What I am saying is that the digital code in DNA, by definition, is not redundant. For if it was, it could not be a code.
Are you denying that DNA is a digital code? For the record, replication, by definition, is redundant. You see, you aren't really challenging my claim.
SUMMARY: I am not talking about replication. DNA is not responsible for replication. RNA polymerase is, if I remember correctly.
Also, there is a digital difference between A-T and T-A.
Maybe I should rephrase: DNA sequences are NOT redundant. Is that better?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 2:40:27 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 2:42:09 AM PDT
David Félix says:
"DNA is not responsible for replication. RNA polymerase is, if I remember correctly."

You should really check out those links noman posted earlier.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 2:49:24 AM PDT
David Félix says:
"Challenge my claims with facts and theory, dammit. Not links."

It's difficult to challenge a claim that "DNA does NOT use chemistry". It makes as much sense as "Cellulose does NOT use chemistry", "Photons do NOT use physics", "Lions do NOT use zoology" or "Pseudomonas aeruginosa does NOT use microbiology".

Furthermore, we are actually challenging your outrageous claim that this is stuff you "already know".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 2:55:27 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 3:05:02 AM PDT
Ok. Sorry. The CODE that IS DNA is not a product of chemistry, any more than a message written with magnetic letters uses the Lorentz force law to adhere to a surface. Physics will tell you why the letters stick to the refrigerator, but physics will never tell you what the message says. In the same way, chemistry will tell you why the nucleotides will adhere to the backbone, but chemistry will never tell you what the code means. Chemistry isn't responsible for the sequence of DNA. Is that better?
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  120
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jul 23, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 5, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions