DNA Was Designed By A Mind

JamesMorrison wrote:

Supernatural evidence seems hard to find.......

The understatement of the millennium.

JamesMorrison wrote:

........scientific evidence, although hard to get.........

Given the time span, efforts and results as per true science versus the same criteria for pseudoscience/religion/superstition, I disagree.

In fact I can easily buy an oscilloscope and frequency generator (for example) and produce a substantive array of scientific evidence without difficulty.

Resistive, inductive, capacitive circuits and their related time constants and phase shifts.......for starters.

0 Replies

JM-

I presume you think that society is not natural.

Is that right?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

loony,

I don't 'look to an organization'. The opinions I post are my own.

Not sure what answer you are looking for. I've said that I do not know the processes that were used when the universe originated, nor the processes that were used when life originated, etc

I don't even pretend to know.

I believe in a supernatural origin. The popularly known term is I'm a creationist.

I enjoy discussing origins with others who don't agree with me because it allows me to question my own assumptions while I question theirs.

I don't pretend to know more than others, although I've been accused of that. I don't even pretend to know a lot about the subject of origins. There are plenty of folks who know more than I do.

I'm here to have fun, learn a bit about how others think and have some more fun. Sorry if my posts occasionally seem to have a hard edge, I've noticed that its very difficult to convey light hearted sarcasm over the internet. I'm just a harmless little fuzzball.

Lastly, no I'm not Bush.

Don't know if that helps, but there ya go. I appreciate your courtesy.

Thanks real life, I'm in a similar position to you, I stumbled across A2K by accident and found some interesting views and arguments.

below is a dribble of thoughts,

at first I felt like most other non highly educated people and immediately thought all the religious type to be idiots. What i have found is that this is not true. regardless of your views intelligence does not factor into how you understand the world around you. I guess you can only draw your understanding from what you understand to be correct from others.

education, history, the general consensus and opinion.

The problem I have is that, for an example, james has put a lengthy explanation down. which i can agree with (right or wrong). I could sit down for years and try to understand myself what he has said in form of a degree or a like. There are mechanics involved, There is a process, there is something to get your hands on and study, theres things you can see, hear, break and fix.

religion on the other hand says 'it's gods work' and if i want to know why 'it's gods work' then at some point I will hit a dead end of spiritual spookiness.

Now like most human beings I suffer from a fear of the unknown, and when a spiritual argument comes along with a cut and dried solution that cannot be flexible or developed or only developed to assist it's argument to its own gain, i become suspicious of an ulteria motive.

Where as science as a tool of humanity(I'm not saying science is perfect) (broad term for darwinism, evolutionism etc) gives me some explanation 'if i want' and i can question science to question it's self.

religion, creationism etc to me seems that because conveniently there is nothing to ask to question the question (ultimately God), as the only thing that exists from the supernatural world (as I understand it) is the 'word in the bible' and so many arguments and misinterpretations exist around the bible, I continue to be confused by religion. I could just as easily make up a story and write it in a book and call it "a book about something" where as 'I' cannot make my ownworking version of Earth as we know it.

I'm not very good at getting my point across but I hope you can see what i'm trying to explain in my view and why I doubt creationism.

although no body on this earth at this time in history can give concrete factual evidence that 'life exist because of this....', Science is trying to explain. where as I feel religion wants me to remain ignorant for its own sake and survival.

If in all the scientific arguments the unknown factor could be "chance", does it fit that 'chance' is the spiritual explantion we are looking for.

stuff, chance, long periods of time = life today

boiled down:
religion(creationism, christanity, catholicism, scientology, budism etc)
= human designed establishment and explanation of life as we know it.

Science (ecology, evolutionism, darwinism etc) = Tool for humans to use in the understanding of why humans and the universe exist in the form we know it.

1 Reply

hi loony,

I really have no objection to science searching for natural explanations of the phenomena in the world around us.

But at many points, even scientific types simply speculate or they make assumptions or even slide over into a supernatural explanation.

When they do so, it should be clearly recognized and labeled as such. That's about it in a thimble.

Most of the ordinary events of human history cannot be 'scientifically proven' because they are not repeatable, falsifiable etc.

They are subject to other methods of proof, i.e. historical/ legal proof , etc

Unfortunately, in today's society, many seem to think that if something isn't 'scientific' then it cannot be true, it cannot be accurate, it cannot be real, etc

That's just not the case.

A fun example that I've used is to try to scientifically prove what you ate for lunch a year ago Tuesday. Or even try to scientifically prove that you ate at all that day.

It doesn't lend itself to 'scientific proof'. That doesn't mean that I didn't eat that day. I promise you I did. But you'd have to take my word as evidence of that fact.

I'm not worried at all about any 'dead ends of spiritual spookiness'. I say let scientists explore to their hearts content.

But when science is at a dead end, which it often is, and assumptions and speculation are employed, it should be clearly labeled.

It often is not, because it's tough to get grant money if you admit you're guessing. And let's not kid ourselves, science is a business.

2 Replies

real life wrote:

hi loony,

I really have no objection to science searching for natural explanations of in the phenomena the world around us.

But at many points, even scientific types make assumptions or even slide over into a supernatural explanation.

When they do so, it should be clearly recognized and labeled as such. That's about it in a thimble.

A thimble is too large to describe your argument. More like trying to put angels on the point of a pin. Of course science makes assumptions. No one has ever denied it. Science HAS to make assumptions. The problem real life is you refuse to accept that science then rigorously tests those assumptions in a variety of ways. Your definition of evidence is NOT the scientific one.

Of course you failed to mention how you continually misrepresent the meaning of "supernatural" and how you use it compared to the normal definition. You claim anything that isn't scientifically explained to your satisfaction at present is "supernatural."

Quote:

Most of the ordinary events of human history cannot be 'scientifically proven' because they are not repeatable, falsifiable etc.

They are subject to other methods of proof, i.e. historical/ legal proof , etc

Unfortunately, in today's society, many seem to think that if something isn't 'scientific' then it cannot be true, it cannot be accurate, it cannot be real, etc

That's just not the case.

A fun example that I've used is to try to scientifically prove what you ate for lunch a year ago Tuesday. Or even try to scientifically prove that you ate at all that day.

It doesn't lend itself to 'scientific proof'. That doesn't mean that I didn't eat that day. I promise you I did. But you'd have to take my word as evidence of that fact.

Nice bait and switch there real life. The better analogy is you claim that no one can prove you ate anything the last 12 years. We say science says otherwise and you claim science can't prove it because we can't show what you specifically ate for lunch one year ago Tuesday.

Quote:

But when science is at a dead end, which it often is, and assumptions and speculation are employed, it should be clearly labeled.

It is labeled. You just don't like the labels because they don't agree with your view point.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Of course you failed to mention how you continually misrepresent the meaning of "supernatural" and how you use it compared to the normal definition. You claim anything that isn't scientifically explained to your satisfaction at present is "supernatural."

Incorrect.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
Of course you failed to mention how you continually misrepresent the meaning of "supernatural" and how you use it compared to the normal definition. You claim anything that isn't scientifically explained to your satisfaction at present is "supernatural."

Incorrect.

Of course you would say that.

To prove it isn't so. Give us the definition of supernatural you use.

0 Replies

slightly off topic here, but seeing as we are on this subject of why how and when etc,

It occured to me that in the bigger picture, we humans are simply vessels in which to transfer life. much like we see in the biogenesis video. maybe not quite the right explantion of how DNA has been designed but generally a sound idea. replication leads to more complex or less complex organisms and eventually to us humans.

I posted about a year ago a question 'why does life bother' and i guess that there doesn't need to be a reason.

If life is purely driven to replicate itself, by any succesful means possible, spreading out as much as possible thoughout the galaxy and universe us humans would make sense.

early life and plants are not going to bulid a space ship and fly off to new worlds to continue replicating life. Dinosuars, Mammals, animals weren't interested either, Is it natural that humans are nearly capable in a short space of time compared to arguable evolution theorys by chance?

so is our lifes purpose to get the hell off this planet and start again/continue somewhere else.
After all if life was bought here by other means (chance asteroids bring the building blocks of life or components to make life happen) then how is it ever going to get off again?

If the world was perfect why would we need to look at flying off to new planets, we could easily stagnate here or even end up dying off.

Are we the begining of something else or part of something that has already tried and failed in the past and make us the next evolutionary step.

This is also where I can see the attraction of spirtualism and religious belief because life is so infinitely unfavamable a true explanation 'how we are here today discussing lifes origins' surely there must be a higher purpose, reason and agenda.

The meaning to this is there are more intelligent and educated people that read these threads, so is there an author or scientst you can recommend that thinks like this and where can I learn more about it?

I think now, although i didn't in the past, that there maybe no reason for anything to be, but if something does exist then it is necessary and for some reason which we probably don't need to know although we may want to.

0 Replies

@real life,

The member "real life" wrote:

"A fun example that I've used is to try to scientifically prove what you ate for lunch a year ago Tuesday. Or even try to scientifically prove that you ate at all that day."

*************************************************

A fun example? A pile of bullshit, more like. Whether or not you missed a few meals in the last year is not relevant, just as whether or not billions upon billions of self-assembling cells reproduced successfully is not relevant.

If you had not eaten any meals since a year ago Tuesday, you would not be posting here, because you would be dead. That is an inferential conclusion for which the evidence is overwhelming--we know beyond any doubt that people who don't eat (don't, won't, can't--it doesn't matter) will die. Whether or not you can recall what you ate on a particular date, and demonstrate that in fact you ate it is simply not relevant to the evidence that you have been regularly eating a sufficient sustainable diet to allow you to annoy anyone with even a little intelligence with the claptrap that you post here.

By the same inferential process, we know that living organisms arose, and that at some point, DNA assembled itself within such an organism, or was assembled as a consequence of the energetic processes of the living organism. It isn't necessary to point to a specific event to say that that specific event was the origin of life--we know that there is life on this planet, and therefore know that it had an origin.

No one here is obliged to prove what that origin was, because no one here is stating to a certainty that they know what the origin was--except for the one holy roller left standing in this thread--which is you.

You claim that you know, and that it is poofism--the deliberate action of your imaginary friend. All of your silly words games left aside, you have no evidence for your claim. There is no reason, therefore, for your claim to be taken seriously.

Inference is a valid means of scientific proof. Just as you do with virtually every other term of discussion, you warp the meaning of scientific proof by making statements from authority about what it means, and we have no good reason to accept your authority in the matter. All of this is necessary to dull-witted and feeble arguments, but you needn't expect to be treated with any respect simply because of your desperate struggle to pretend that your position has an equivalent validity to the results of the application of genuine logic and the scientific method.

0 Replies

@real life,

RL wrote: "A fun example that I've used is to try to scientifically prove what you ate for lunch a year ago Tuesday. Or even try to scientifically prove that you ate at all that day."

Science doesn't work by finding something to prove and then trying to prove it. It works by observing nature and then offering a theory to explain what it observes. Then the theory is repeatedly tested to make sure it isn't in conflict with any of the evidence.

A good example is the theory of evolution, which describes a natural process that explains what we see in biology. A theory which has now been tested for over a hundred years and does not conflict with any of the evidence and makes valuable and verified predictions. It's a theory which increases our understanding of the natural world and gives us functional knowledge for survival, something which creationism can't do.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne makes an excellent point. Scientific theories are posed then compared with all evidence and events that pop up. If just one little tiny bit of evidence or one tini-tiny event is counter to the predictions or explanations embodied in the theory that theory, at best, must be revised and at worst abandoned. Additionally, this fact checking is ongoing -- forever.

JM

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

Chumly RE:

Quote:

“Given the time span, efforts and results as per true science versus the same criteria for pseudoscience/religion/superstition, I disagree.

In fact I can easily buy an oscilloscope and frequency generator (for example) and produce a substantive array of scientific evidence without difficulty.”

You are, of course, correct but only if viewed short term as you state. But scientists, such as Einstein, Newton, Crick and Watson, Jonas Salk, Pasteur, and whoever controlled fire and developed the wheel, were not as fortunate and did not have the wealth of information we now possess. As you well know we stand on the shoulders of those in the past and, if lucky, will feel the feet of our prodigy on our own shoulders. The point is science itself evolves through hard earned knowledge passed on.

spendius RE:

Quote:

” I presume you think that society is not natural.

Is that right?”

It is all according to what your definition of natural is (Almost sounds Clintonian doesn’t it?). So, I will assume the term “natural” refers to that so described as “having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature". So defined, anything… let’s be clear here...absolutely anything that is a production of selection and descent via (Neo-) Darwinism is natural. Witness: The most abundant element in our universe is, unsurprisingly, the most “elemental”. That element is, of course, hydrogen (Protium -- it has one electron and one electron). Can any one argue against this premise? Through scientific investigation we know that all other “natural” elements are formed in the real life crucibles of stars; oxygen, iron, carbon, nitrogen, and gold --we all know the list. (Some elements aren’t “naturally” found on earth (originally earth contained very little oxygen), but their existence has been predicted, and actually realized, by human based science.). These chemicals via the natural laws of our universe combined to form other chemicals (like oxygen and hydrogen found not only in comets but on earth itself as the compound dihydrogen oxide, better known as water).These in turn formed ever more complex compounds and some were even organic in nature " precursors of ever more complex organic molecules. But, if “we” believe in the Darwinian algorithm (this, also, is a justifiable premise in the context of spendius’ question and my beliefs) and we believe that humans are the product of slightly less complex living systems via evolutionary forces then why would all these natural processes produce an “unnatural” human society? If the societies of leaf cutter ants and chimps are considered “natural” why would human society be described otherwise? Consequently, human societies are themselves a result of and subject to evolutionary forces (the term “memes” now becomes relevant " but that’s a different thread).

Loony For someone who considers theirself “non highly educated” you are doing fine by asking intelligent and important questions not to mention your resultant conclusion when faced with dogma, to whit:

Quote:

” when a spiritual argument comes along with a cut and dried solution that cannot be flexible or developed or only developed to assist it's argument to its own gain, i become suspicious of an ulteria motive.”

Keep up the good work, ask questions and demand answers that make sense and that can be verified (or, just as important, disproved). If a statement declares itself above reproach and verifiability, run away from it as fast as possible.

Remember it’s not the education you don’t have that counts it’s the one you get thru your own hard work and your questions thoughtfully asked and considered and then intelligently answered.

JM

2 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

Error Correction :the phrase "originally earth contained very little oxygen" should read "originally earth contained very little free molecular (O2) oxygen"

my apologies, JM

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

Quote:

JM-

I presume you think that society is not natural.

Is that right?

Are you not answering James?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Sorry James. I have have just noticed you have answered. I'll ponder it in my bath.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius RE:

Quote:

Are you not answering James?

Actually I did, two posts before your above question appeared(in Post 3357762).) If you click on ” Fit to Post” to expand the post window and then read the entire post you will find my answer.

JM

0 Replies

@spendius,

Gotcha spendius, enjoy.

0 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

Quote:

Consequently, human societies are themselves a result of and subject to evolutionary forces.

And thus natural I presume you mean.

Then religion is natural just as hierarchy is. Religion is a feature of all known societies. Some might say the spinal column.

It is irrelevant how much mayhem it causes. Evolution is mayhem looked at from out puter rooms. It's design is hidden from view. We therefore need to invent a designer to feel better about ourselves. It's efficient for survival that the group feels better about itself.

So irreligion, natural as well, because it occurs, is like elocution lessons or fashion makeovers. It seeks to be different. It thinks that throwing all these easy to throw insults at Religion renders it superior. It ought to get down to setting some irreligious examples rather than keep spouting about it. That way if the examples looked good we might then convert to their point of view. Luther said "Sin boldly." Pecce something in Latin.

Pub time.

2 Replies

@spendius,

"Pecca fortiter" was the phrase.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius Post: # 3,358,145
RE:

Quote:

And thus {human societies are} natural I presume you mean.

Yes, and given my thoughts and beliefs even Paley’s watch found on the heath is considered natural.

Quote:

Then religion is natural just as hierarchy is. Religion is a feature of all known societies. Some might say the spinal column.

Yes, just like, amoungst others, Communisim.

Quote:

It is irrelevant how much mayhem it causes. Evolution is mayhem looked at from out puter rooms. It's design is hidden from view. We therefore need to invent a designer to feel better about ourselves. It's efficient for survival that the group feels better about itself.

First, I would hope that anything refered to as mayhem would be considered relevant, at least to the participants. The Spanish flu in 1918 killed 50 million people world wide and was relevant to the decedents as well as their families. I would contend that acts by humans committed in the name of religion has killed at least as many. Therefore the pursuit of religion’s origins and causes are just as relevant as discovering those of the Flu. The pathways of such viral pathogens are helpful on a dual basis. Just as religion, viral “goodness” can be squeezzed from knowledge of the mechanisms they use to infect us (Vaccines and genetic insertion techniques). Perhaps, some day, we might develop a vaccine for some particulary viral strains of religion.

However, the next to last sentence of this paragraph is revealing. Is it your contention that God is a human invention?

Quote:

So irreligion, natural as well, because it occurs, is like elocution lessons or fashion makeovers. It seeks to be different. It thinks that throwing all these easy to throw insults at Religion renders it superior. It ought to get down to setting some irreligious examples rather than keep spouting about it. That way if the examples looked good we might then convert to their point of view. Luther said "Sin boldly." Pecce something in Latin.

I’m not sure of your definition of irreligion but I’m going to make a big assumption that you are refering to evolutionary scientists. Further, I assume that “irreligious examples” should have a more positive note: you think that scientists like Richard Dawkins should be kinder to those who espouse a belief in a higher entity, that is a God. Perhaps, that wish is not unreasonable. But perhaps you have not witnessed the contextual asasssination that many of the scientists have endured at the hands of Creationists and, lately, Intelligence Design types. Their words have been twisted and chopped until they are easily used to argue in the Creationist cause under the guise of “science”. But More importantly, the scientists’ orginal intent was not to denigrate religionists but merely to discover worldly facts. But then scientists have every right to examine, with their own tools, creationists’ claims when they claim science as the base of their own truths. If creationists want to use the legitimacy of science and bask in its stellar accomplishments they must be willing to suffer its slings and arrows that perform the verification of that legitimacy.

JM

1 Reply

DNA Was Designed By A Mind

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know