Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Jessy Lanza Father's Day Gift Guide 2016 Fire TV Stick Luxury Beauty Father's Day Gifts Amazon Cash Back Offer DrThorne DrThorne DrThorne  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Outdoor Recreation SnS
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 101-125 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 5:28:26 PM PDT
I just knew physicists were quarky bunch.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 5:48:05 PM PDT
Zain says:
Using the logic followed in your statements, I present an example:
1. I state that I can see ghosts. 2. Which makes this intangible believe in my brain, true to myself. 3. This is now a fact . 3. This fact cannot be discredited (or credited). So, in conclusion, I can see ghosts is a true fact. And nobody can prove me wrong.

The problem here is that, the words fact and belief are being used synonymously. Since, those are two polar words, and have no relation in the case. The statement is more of a spiritual one, rather than a tangible scientific thesis, which can be empirically or mathematically proven into a scientific theory.
I would like to point out, that I am a highly spiritual person, and understand that it is not something, which can be proven or otherwise.
Creationism is simply a case of faith (once again a spiritual belief). Where as intelligent design, can be tested scientifically; just as evolution has been.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 5:52:53 PM PDT
noman says:
remember drawing a line across the side of the card stack in case (when) you dropped them (for those who don't know what I'm talking about...the line in thick marker makes it easier to reassemble your stack in correct order.

Anyone here ever program an analog computer? I only got to do it a few times but I always liked the plugs better than the punch cards.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 6:12:19 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
I said, "This discussion has reached its second page and no one has provided a single scientific definition to ID."

Jeff Marzano aksed, "Why would you even ask a question like that in a science forum ?"

I will answer with the following:

There are two reasons. The first is that the likes of the Doctor with no PhD claim that the "theory" is well defined. I would like to see them prove at least that much. The second reason is that whenever a stray ID definition actually turns up it is rather fun to show it is nonsensical. You could say that the plan was for a honey trap. Give the creationists enough rope and wait for them to hang themselves.

Posted on Jul 25, 2012 6:58:40 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
let's explore this code thing for a minute. typically, codes are both administered and interpreted sequentially. now, in quantum mechanics, 'identical' particles can't be used as enumerative constructs because there's no way to distinguish between identical particles - so there's no way to use them as sequence markers. in dna, the individual a/t and c/g base couples should be considered equally indistinguishable, they are after all, quantum mechanical.

given that, how can they comprise a sequential 'code'? if dna is a code, it's of a different form than sequential. moreover, it's very clear, from the protein folding problem, that proteins fold in a non-sequential fashion...

perhaps this whole coding thing is completely off the mark?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 8:07:22 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 25, 2012 8:20:52 PM PDT
GENETIC CODE: the biochemical instructions that translate the genetic information present as a linear sequence of nucleotide triplets in messenger RNA into the correct linear sequence of amino acids for the synthesis of a particular peptide chain or protein. Cf. codon , translation
(Random House Unabridged Dictionary)

DNA: A nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA
(Houghton Mifflin Dictionary)

DNA: Genetics.
deoxyribonucleic acid: an extremely long macromolecule that is the main component of chromosomes and is the material that transfers genetic characteristics in all life forms, constructed of two nucleotide strands coiled around each other in a ladderlike arrangement with the sidepieces composed of alternating phosphate and deoxyribose units and the rungs composed of the purine and pyrimidine bases adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine: the genetic information of DNA is encoded in the sequence of the bases and is transcribed as the strands unwind and replicate. Cf. base pair, gene, genetic code, RNA. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary.)

Therefore Snowflakes and tornados and sand dunes and water molecules do not contain coded information because there is no system of symbols, no encoding / decoding mechanism, no transmission of a message (plan, idea or instructions) that is independent of the communication medium. In other words, these things represent nothing other than themselves.

DNA contains coded information because it is a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism which transmits a message (a plan, an idea, instructions for assembling a complete organism). The plans, ideas and instructions are independent of the communication medium, because the DNA molecule represents something other than itself.

as sited previously see additional arguments here... http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-atheists/dna-code/

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 8:26:45 PM PDT
Re werrant413, 7-25 4:46 PM: I have explained previously that a code is simply a mapping from one set of symbols to another, and by this definition DNA is certainly a code: each triplet maps into a unique amino acid. One usually thinks of codes as a human construct, but this is too limiting. Of course, life doesn't care whether the biologists call this a code or not; as long as it can be replicated and decoded, that is all that matters. Codes generally convey information, and DNA is no exception: DNA is a record of all of the evolutionary experiments which worked well enough to permit survival and reproduction. (Of course, intelligence is not involved in this in any way.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 8:33:40 PM PDT
Re kriske, 7-25 6:58 PM: There are several flaws in this argument. Firstly, the DNA bases are sufficiently large that quantum mechanics need not (and ordinarily is not) used in dealing with them. But the real blooper is that the bases are in fact sequential: they are tied together linearly, and read linearly. Also, your business about proteins is also wrong: the amino acid chains in proteins are strung together linearly, and the proteins fold through angles determined partly by the two amino acids involved, and partly by influence from other amino acids in proximity.

Posted on Jul 25, 2012 8:34:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 25, 2012 8:38:19 PM PDT
Anything on that Creationist high school girl's prediction guys?

The one thats based on Creationist Science?
The one thats supported by all Peer Reviewed Empirical Evidence?
And by Peer Reviewed theoretical reaction kinetics fellas?

Naturalistic abiogenisis will not be demonstrated

Them Peer Reviewed Blowhards, its been 80 years with no results huh fellas.
How long till they admit Peer Reviwed Failure?
Us Creationists, let us guess
Not while the Peer Reviewed Gravy Train keeps running.
Its how Peer Reviewed Science Works huh?

Posted on Jul 25, 2012 8:37:16 PM PDT
"Not while the Peer Reviewed Gravy Train keeps running.
Its how Science Works huh? "

At one time I had the necessary qualifications to enter medical school (in fact, had aced medical school anatomy). My salary now, as a full professor of evolutionary biology, is less than what a starting out MD would make. Run that "gravy train" thing past me again.

Posted on Jul 25, 2012 8:51:20 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 25, 2012 8:57:53 PM PDT
Us Creationsts we figure this
The market sets the price.
So supply and demand wise, Dr Full Professor phd BMOCs, in Ahem, Evolutionary Biology, they must not have no worth-while stuff to offer nobody.
Anyhow, thank God they got the NSF to milk or tenure or no tenure, you'd be at Burger King's.
God provides for all his children, huh?

Take it from us Creationists.
People need oil, not B.S.
So six years ago, I figured I'd go into horizontal drilling after I finished high school.
At Elm Coulee, we cant get enough guys what know the expertise. The bonuses, unbelieveable!
Maybe you should of gone into drilling too. Do you think you could figure out running a compressor?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 9:45:47 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
thank you- convenient and useless.

/DNA contains coded information because it is a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism which transmits a message (a plan, an idea, instructions for assembling a complete organism). The plans, ideas and instructions are independent of the communication medium, because the DNA molecule represents something other than itself./

the first sentence is complete supposition; the second sentence - plans, ideas... is intrinsically anthropomorphic, and nothing in biology is independent of the medium; and the the last sentence is simply linguistic filler, with no content.

einsteins brain...not

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 25, 2012 10:27:22 PM PDT
tom kriske says:
bob, you know i hate to argue with you -primarily because i'm usually wrong - but the protein folding problem is highly nonlinear - it is not a sequential matter. and i'm not convinced that dna is read linearly, even though it is fed through the ribosomes linearly. lastly, the bases are most certainly quantum in nature.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 12:14:55 AM PDT
noman says:
Foldit is a revolutionary new computer game enabling you to contribute to important scientific research. This page describes the science behind Foldit and how your playing can help.

http://fold.it/portal/info/science

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 12:23:11 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 26, 2012 12:25:54 AM PDT
REJN says:
On July 25, 2012 11:14:46 AM PDT Charles F. Mielke said:
"I have seen the estimate that the Universe, as a whole, is some 10^40,000 times the size of our visible universe."
******
We don't have evidence for multiple universes, for example. Yet I have seen people argue that they might be there, even though we have no evidence for them. So IF our universe is 10^40,000 times the size of our visible universe, it might be expected that vacuum energy would be the exact value needed SOMEWHERE so elements would accidentally happen. Elements could accidentally form life. Basically, ANYTHING could happen accidentally.
Since you are dealing with things beyond the visible and beyond the evidence, I'm actually going to do you a favor. (In spite of the fact that I think this line of logic is extremely fragile.)
Here's a quote for you. "The Universe, as a whole, might be some 10^40,000,000,000 times the size of our visible universe."
Next time you can say: "I have seen the estimate that the Universe, as a whole, is some 10^40,000,000,000 times the size of our visible universe."
Of course the estimate isn't backed up by evidence, but neither was the first estimate. So who cares?

(Edited to add the time stamp to the Mielke quote.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 2:42:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 26, 2012 2:45:11 AM PDT
RR says:
REJN,
" Yet I have seen people argue that they might be there, even though we have no evidence for them."

There is a mathematical basis for it. The problem with ID is that it is a placeholder for ignorance without even the mathematical basis. There is no more basis for ID than there is for karma. Two ideas solely founded on religious notions.

You may find this shocking but a mathematical basis for a hypothesis is better than one presented to you as a child in Sunday School.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 3:39:00 AM PDT
Re kriske, 7-25 10:27 PM: "but the protein folding problem is highly nonlinear..." It is indeed a computational nightmare. But DNA IS read linearly -- which is why we (and the cells) can determine the amino acid sequence from DNA. As for quantum effects being important in this, you should look for a citation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 4:57:40 AM PDT
Sorry but I don't accept that analogy. You are referring to specific mathematically well-defined entities when you talk of waves or quantum particles. In the case of ID there is no such well-defined definition of "best described". Instead, "best described" is simply being used in the sense of "it's my opinion that".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 5:18:08 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hiding from the question you're scared to answer, eh Haynes? Too bad it's not going to work. Here it is again:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, Superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually DID happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 7:08:43 AM PDT
REJN,

You know, it would be much less condescending if you merely asked for a citation rather than deigning to do anyone a favor. So, you can stuff those extra zeros back were you pulled them from.

FYI, you'll find the "10^40,000" citation in "Sizing Up the Universe: The Cosmos in Perspective."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 8:56:25 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 26, 2012 9:01:37 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 26, 2012 9:03:43 AM PDT
There is no question that there IS "junk" DNA, i.e., DNA that serves no purpose. E.g., pseudogenes, microsatellite regions, and retroposons.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2012 9:04:51 AM PDT
Your statement that some patterns ARE the result of intelligence cannot be substantiated, because there exists no technique for distinguishing between patterns that are the result of "intelligence" and patterns that are not.

That is the central failing of ID.

Posted on Jul 26, 2012 9:10:14 AM PDT
A. Caplan says:
I figure that this thread is attracting the supporters of Intelligent design, so I guess that this is as good place as any to repeat my usual question for them.

In order to ID to be a valid theory it must have the same basis as any scientific theory. I would like to know what book, thesis, or paper is equivalent to evolution's Origin of Species? That is, where can I find the scientific path that starts with empirical evidence, follows the deductive reasoning to the conclusion (theory of ID), explains the testable predictions, and suggests future paths of research?
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Undeniable proof that god isn't necessary for life. 0 36 minutes ago
Since no contact is possible, does it make sense to keep trying? 303 40 minutes ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 5006 1 hour ago
spherical earth vs. flat earth 1239 1 hour ago
What is the greatest thing in the universe? 703 1 hour ago
Undeniable Proof That God Exists! 1058 1 hour ago
Creationists ask......Are there honest Scientists? 32 3 hours ago
International oil discoveries lowest since 1952 11 3 hours ago
Finding God In The Waves 3 3 hours ago
In The Know Universe and Beyond, Is it possible for Something to come from Nothing? Can there first be Nothing and then at some point can Something arise from Nothing? Or was there Always Something? Or was there first Nothing and Then Something? 23 3 hours ago
Meet an ET, Named (by us) JROD from 'Serpo' whose 'Flying Saucer' crashed near Kingman, Arizona in 1963 52 5 hours ago
Age of Neanderthal stone circles in France 11 5 hours ago
 

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 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions