Scientists debunk 'junk DNA' theory!

[tonyrey]

Such as how in the world consciousness could develop from a random mingling of atoms. That it could happen seems preposterous on the surface, and the more one thinks about it, it appears even more ridiculous. To think that a thousand million billion synapses could fire in our brains in a second, and that there is a naturalistic explanation for it strains credulity. Rob

Those who derive the power of insight from electrical impulses have faith in the greatest magic known to mankind!

 

[tonyrey]

False. Science shows design to be present in the origin of many things: flint arrowheads, crime scenes, GM organisms and others. All ID has to do is to attain the same scientific standards as archaeology, forensic science and genetics.

Unfortunately, ID seems not to be doing the required drudge work in the lab. Which pieces of DNA are designed? How do we know this? When were they designed? How were the correct base pairs moved into position? Can we show this process happening now?

The Discovery Institute has a laboratory. Where are the ID results from that lab? Notice that the results on junk DNA didn’t come from an ID lab, but from standard science labs. (So much for the “suppress all pro-ID results in science” meme as well.)

Science didn’t even exist until philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had laid the intellectual foundations on which it is based.

It is not necessary to go to a lab to find evidence for design. Every post you write is the product of design. Science itself and scientific standards are the product of design. The process of design is at work in all rational activity. Design is the basis of spiritual development.

We are constantly testing and verifying the power of reason in almost everything we do. Those who reject design are using their power of reason to do so. They fail to realise that design is simply purposeful activity. To deny that design exists is to reduce everything to purposeless activity. And if thought is purposeless it is worthless…

 

[tonyrey]

It’s called inductive logic, Rossum. If you can’t see God in the miracle of life, I believe that it’s b/c you refuse to see it. All scientists can do is work with what already exists. If naturalism is true, life should be able to be reduced to mathematical equations. It’s perplexing that scientists don’t seem to be able to reconstruct the life scenario which they can observe right in front of themselves. Blessings, Rob

Mathematical equations are the product of rational activity!

 

[edwest2]

A little humor if may.

“Scientists once thought that if you put 1,000 monkeys into a room with a thousand typewriters, and given enough time, they would randomly type out some important piece of writing like the Gettysburg Address. But now, thanks to the internet, we know that’s not true.”



Ed

 

[Bradski]

It is not necessary to go to a lab to find evidence for design. Every post you write is the product of design.

Why would you (purposely?) confuse a post about ID with the obvious statement that a post is designed to convey information?

To deny that design exists is to reduce everything to purposeless activity. And if thought is purposeless it is worthless…

I am beginning to see why you have so many posts. You throw out a huge number of relatively simple statements, generally unconnected and quite often with the vaguest connection to the topic in question and quite often vague in themselves with (presumably) the belief that they are insightful in some way and that you are adding some deep and meaningful contribution to the conversation.

I’m sure that something you post does, at some time, add to the conversation in a positive way. Let’s face it, the law of averages demand it. But good lord, I have to read through a lot of desk-top-calendar dross to find it. But I’ll keep looking.

 

[tonyrey]

Why would you (purposely?) confuse a post about ID with the obvious statement that a post is designed to convey information?

Your post consists entirely of ad hominems, does not refute any of my statements and does precisely **nothing **to further the discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

A little humor if may.

“Scientists once thought that if you put 1,000 monkeys into a room with a thousand typewriters, and given enough time, they would randomly type out some important piece of writing like the Gettysburg Address. But now, thanks to the internet, we know that’s not true.”

The same conclusion is true if “sceptics” are substituted for “monkeys” and “rational arguments” for “the Gettysburg Address”!

 

[Bradski]

Your post consists entirely of ad hominems, does not refute any of my statements and does precisely **nothing **to further the discussion.

Correct.

Which reminds me that I forgot one thing. You are master of what could be classed as the bleeding obvious.

 

[tonyrey]

Why would you (purposely?) confuse a post about ID with the obvious statement that a post is designed to convey information?

 

[tonyrey]

Which reminds me that I forgot one thing. You are master of what could be classed as the bleeding obvious.

When an individual resorts to invective his argument is indisputably defective!

 

[rossum]

It’s called inductive logic, Rossum. If you can’t see God in the miracle of life, I believe that it’s b/c you refuse to see it.

“If you can’t see Vishnu in the miracle of life…” Your logic does not lead to the Christian God, just to some sort of God. And of course, for a scientist, Vishnu is himself alive and so cannot explain the origin of life. Psalm 42:2 “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.” (emphasis added)

All scientists can do is work with what already exists. If naturalism is true, life should be able to be reduced to mathematical equations. It’s perplexing that scientists don’t seem to be able to reconstruct the life scenario which they can observe right in front of themselves.

I am not a materialist. However, where the study of the material is concerned then science is the best method we have available. Indeed, the study we are currently discussing is scientists looking at the material DNA in our material bodies. That is science doing work that is within its area of expertise.

rossum

 

[Bradski]

Why are you deliberately evading the fact that every post is the product of purposeful activity? (Although whether it is rational is another matter…)

I hate to keep pointing out problems with what you post. It isn’t constructive in the long run. But it needs to be done here because it’s applicable to what I wrote.

You are not reading what I write. I get that quite often. Maybe it’s because I have nominated myself as an atheist. When some people of faith see that description up on the top right of each of my posts they seem, automatically, to think that what I have said is either wrong or is some veiled attack on their belief.

That’s not the case in every case. Although I am wrong more often than I’d like to be. But if I do argue against someone’s viewpoint, it it rarely ‘veiled’.

That said, I said earlier that a post is designed to convey information and that that is an obvious statement to make. That is not, as you say above, me evading the fact. It is, in fact, me confirming the fact. I am agreeing with you. Despite the fact that your statement is a classical non sequitur.

When an individual resorts to invective his argument is indisputably defective!

I try not to resort to invective. When I do, it is quite possible that I may have lost the argument if that is all I have to say. In this case, I have yet to make an argument. You will know when I do.

 

[Bradski]

I hate to keep pointing out problems with what you post. It isn’t constructive in the long run. But it needs to be done here because it’s applicable to what I wrote.

You are not reading what I write. I get that quite often. Maybe it’s because I have nominated myself as an atheist. When some people of faith see that description up on the top right of each of my posts they seem, automatically, to think that what I have said is either wrong or is some veiled attack on their belief.

That’s not the case in every case. Although I am wrong more often than I’d like to be. But if I do argue against someone’s viewpoint, it it rarely ‘veiled’.

That said, I said earlier that a post is designed to convey information and that that is an obvious statement to make. That is not, as you say above, me evading the fact. It is, in fact, me confirming the fact. I am agreeing with you. Despite the fact that your statement is a classical non sequitur.

I try not to resort to invective. When I do, it is quite possible that I may have lost the argument if that is all I have to say. In this case, I have yet to make an argument. You will know when I do.

 

[tonyrey]

I hate to keep pointing out problems with what you post. It isn’t constructive in the long run. But it needs to be done here because it’s applicable to what I wrote.

You are not reading what I write. I get that quite often. Maybe it’s because I have nominated myself as an atheist. When some people of faith see that description up on the top right of each of my posts they seem, automatically, to think that what I have said is either wrong or is some veiled attack on their belief.

That’s not the case in every case. Although I am wrong more often than I’d like to be. But if I do argue against someone’s viewpoint, it it rarely ‘veiled’.

Having discussed these issues for more than half a century I have reached the stage where I am far more concerned with ideas rather than labels. I treat arguments on their merits regardless of their authors’ beliefs or disbeliefs. I have often been attacked by Catholics for disagreeing with them and even been reported for being heretical!

I don’t care what people believe provided they are sincere and open-minded. If my responses are sometimes sharp it is because I believe in giving people a taste of their own medicine. Christianity doesn’t entail turning the other cheek and tolerating sarcasm. Jesus didn’t hesitate to call the Pharisees “a brood of vipers” and “whited sepulchres”.

That said, I said earlier that a post is designed to convey information and that that is an obvious statement to make. That is not, as you say above, me evading the fact. It is, in fact, me confirming the fact. I am agreeing with you. Despite the fact that your statement is a classical non sequitur.

I try not to resort to invective. When I do, it is quite possible that I may have lost the argument if that is all I have to say. In this case, I have yet to make an argument. You will know when I do.

I don’t know which statement you have in mind but - more to the point - I look forward to hearing your argument.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t care what people believe provided they are sincere and open-minded.

I think that that’s an excellent viewpoint. Everyone should keep that in mind, myself included.

I look forward to hearing your argument.

I don’t have an argument. Just opinions on life, the universe and everything.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t have an argument. Just opinions on life, the universe and everything.

That’s all we need - with a few reasons thrown in… Philosophers don’t have a monopoly of truth - although they’re more to blame if they’re inconsistent.

 

[Ender]

Science can’t prove anything. However, science + logic can show beyond reasonable doubt that God, as commonly understood (and there’s a can of worms!) doesn’t exist. How? Well, a being as immensely powerful and complex as God is reputed to be, who has intervened in the world as often as he is reputed to have done, should have left overwhelming evidence for his existence. But there is none. The rational conclusion is that God doesn’t exist. The only other explanation is that God has gone to extreme measures to leave no tracks. But such an “explanation” is no more than special pleading, so ultimately worthless.

I love these arguments. This one reminds me of the very scientific/logical proof given a few centuries ago that hemp grows on Mars.“We can see canals on Mars and where there are canals there is water; where there is water there are ships; where there are ships there are sails; where there are sails there are ropes and where there are ropes there is hemp. Therefore: hemp grows on Mars. QED.”

“Scientists once thought that if you put 1,000 monkeys into a room with a thousand typewriters, and given enough time, they would randomly type out some important piece of writing like the Gettysburg Address. But now, thanks to the internet, we know that’s not true.”

But this really is hilarious. By design.

Ender

 

[tonyrey]

I love these arguments. This one reminds me of the very scientific/logical proof given a few centuries ago that hemp grows on Mars.“We can see canals on Mars and where there are canals there is water; where there is water there are ships; where there are ships there are sails; where there are sails there are ropes and where there are ropes there is hemp. Therefore: hemp grows on Mars. QED.”
But this really is hilarious. By design.

Ender

One false premise can prove anything whatsoever!

 

[Sair]

One false premise can prove anything whatsoever!

Oh, so true…

 

[tonyrey]

Oh, so true…

How about:

“Everything is derived from physical energy.” ?