Ultra-sensitive microscope reveals DNA processes

New Scientist ^ | November 15, 2005 | Gaia [sic] Vince

[furball4paws]

I doubt that our level of knowledge is sufficient to answer your question at this time. Certainly mine isn't. But Science progresses every day so who knows?

I pick up references in several posters and I think it's a breath of fresh air sometimes. I started a little Ogden Nash earlier.

We'll be watching you more closely from now on. b_sharp and Gumlegs and Doctor Stochastic are particularly good at this stuff.

[Fester Chugabrew]

From a purely conceptual standpoint science does not have limits. In practice, however, it is indeed limited. All that is necessary for science to take place is a.) a human observer, and b.) phenomena to observe.

Obviously this is too wide a definition for you. It's got to be guys in lab coats handing down formal declarations of sacred truth. Hahahaha! You're the mystic, not me.

[furball4paws]

Id you haven't got something of substance to say, say it to someone else, please.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I've used terminology related to design and how it applies in this case. It escapes you, most likely out of willful ignorance. "

You've said that organized matter was design. I am asking for a real definition of design, yet you refuse to provide one.

"Design entails the arrangement of matter in such a way as to be organized and purposeful. Atoms do not fly apart because they are designed to retain their respective pattern of form and behavior. If design is not responsible for atoms retaining their form, then what, scientifically speaking, is?"

All you have described is order, not design. Atoms do not fly apart because that is their NATURE. We have no way of knowing HOW that nature originated, it's not a scientific question. Could have been a designer, could just *BE*. Science is agnostic as to this question.

"I said nothing about the origins of matter. I am discussing the ability of matter to retain its consistency and transmit information."

Yes you did, you said,

"I'm still waiting to hear your scientific alternative to intelligent design as causative of organized matter."

You were asking for the cause of organized matter, and I rightly said that this is not a question that science can answer. Please, for everybody's sake, loosen that vice on your head. :) Now, what is science?

[furball4paws]

Wow. Who would have thought a new-fangled super microscope would give us a thousand posts? But then most posts had nothing to do with the thread.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"From a purely conceptual standpoint science does not have limits. In practice, however, it is indeed limited."

Science is a logical tool that is ONLY useful in practice. Therefore, it IS always limited in scope.

"All that is necessary for science to take place is a.) a human observer, and b.) phenomena to observe."

No, this is false. You are describing the preconditions for perception, not science. Perception is not science. Observation is not science. My God!, you are not even CLOSE to being right. Observation, perception, is a STARTING point of science; science is much more than that though. It's testing, it's organizing these observations into theories; theories that can be falsified and that can make testable predictions.

"Obviously this is too wide a definition for you."

No, it just isn't science.

"It's got to be guys in lab coats handing down formal declarations of sacred truth. Hahahaha! You're the mystic, not me."

You have now redefined mystic as to be objective and science as subjective. Do you get paid for every word you redefine?

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Causative of organized matter" does not mean "origins of matter." If you are this incapable of understanding plain English it is no wonder you blather on with considerable lack of coherence in regard to the argument at hand.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Check the root meaning of the word science, and it might become more apparent to you what I mean, too.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I consider it pure mysticism to attribute the ordered arrangement of matter to something other than intelligent design. Since you do not have an answer, I can only assume you believe in some mysterious force.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

""Causative of organized matter" does not mean "origins of matter."

But it DOES mean the CAUSE of organized matter. That's not a scientific question. And how is the cause of organized matter not the origins of organized matter?

"If you are this incapable of understanding plain English it is no wonder you blather on with considerable lack of coherence in regard to the argument at hand."

It's so difficult to keep up with words whose definitions you keep changing. You don't speak plain English, you speak Festereeze. You change the meanings of words to fit your mystical feelings. Now please, loosen that vice on your head! :)

[Fester Chugabrew]

May I ask how one can have order without design, or design without order? Looks like you are the one interested in redfining things.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Check the root meaning of the word science, and it might become more apparent to you what I mean, too."

Science still needs physical evidence and testable, falsifiable theories.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I consider it pure mysticism to attribute the ordered arrangement of matter to something other than intelligent design. Since you do not have an answer, I can only assume you believe in some mysterious force."

Now you are a blatant liar. I DID give you an answer, I specifically said WE CAN'T KNOW. That is the ONLY logical answer to give. It's pure mysticism to say that intelligent design (which you can't define) HAS to be the answer when you have

1) No evidence.
2) Can't test your feeling.
3) There is no hypothetical fact or discovery that could possibly weaken your feeling.

Stop lying now about what I have said.

[GOPPachyderm]

Ahhh, there you have it. You are correct that a priori assumptions affect our cosmology. There seems to be a great deal of emotional investment in evolution on this site with the notion that if you're not a physicist at the very least, you are (to quote Dan Akroyd's counterpoint to Jane Curtain) an ignorant slut. I know there is a lot of debate on these issues among scientists, yet some posters seem to indicate that there is consensus on what is still a theory based on a priori assumptions. As example, I know that there are a handful of transitional forms that are hotly debated but it has been stated on Free Republic that these few examples provide incontrovertible proof.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"May I ask how one can have order without design, or design without order? Looks like you are the one interested in redfining things."

"Order" does not = "design".

[GOPPachyderm]

I appreciated your reply. Virology is an interesting field I'm sure, especially these days!

[WildHorseCrash]

No, what I am saying is that so long as you are looking for confirmation of your religious views, you will further twist and twist your beliefs to protect your religious views. You see, as a starting point, their correctness and the fact they cannot, by definition, be wrong. That is an a priori assumption. But there is no evidence for those religious beliefs, which is why the "debates" about the transitional fossils are scientists discussing science and religious types running interference for their religious views.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Not according to the root meaning. It only needs those things if one is insistent upon a narrow meaning. That is an approach particularly well-suited to ideologues like yourself.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I DID give you an answer, I specifically said WE CAN'T KNOW.

You have a low standard for the capabilities of science. Don't worry, science does just fine without your self-imposed limitations.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Is the "=" sign the only one you know?