Skip to comments.
Ultra-sensitive microscope reveals DNA processes
New Scientist ^
| November 15, 2005
| Gaia [sic] Vince
Posted on 11/16/2005 3:40:35 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620, 621-640, 641-660 ... 1,201-1,219 next last
To: DennisR
For all the evos out there, THIS is science. Something you can actually observe and repeat.
Evolution can be observed.
There is no theorizing involved.
Actually, there is. The theorizing is on explaining why DNA does what it does. It's on explaining why the molecules of DNA act as they do. The observations on how DNA behaves will lead to theories on how life itself works. Theories are the end-result of scientific inquiry. Why do so many creationists seem to think that they are weak spots rather than the fundamental goal of scientific study?
And no made-up pictures of humans coming from apes.
That would hardly be relevant in this particular study.
621
posted on
11/16/2005 9:57:10 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Fester Chugabrew
I don't know anyone alive, save for a few nut cases, who think "everything that could possibly be known is known." The argument has to to with probabilities and statistics.
Argument from incredulity is not a statistical argument. It's a blank assertion that a person's inability to comprehend an event is evidence against the event. A statistical argument would rely upon the calculated statistical probability, not the arguer's personal inability to comprehend.
622
posted on
11/16/2005 10:00:21 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: highball
There is more than a shred of evidence for organized matter and, by extension, and intelligent designer. There is less than an apology for calling you an ass.
Comment #624 Removed by Moderator
Comment #625 Removed by Moderator
To: highball
Keep in mind that Fester thinks that everyone should assume that Genesis is literal truth before doing any research or drawing any conclusions. For Fester that is a starting premise, not a conclusion.
In other words, Fester assumes his conclusion and works backwards to try and justify it. And then he argues that anyone who does not do that is not being scientific.
626
posted on
11/16/2005 10:06:23 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Stingy Dog
I have never made such a statement. Prove it!
You are correct. I made a mistake and I apologize. You merely said that you never said that ID was scientific.
Could you explain the purpose for making that statement?
627
posted on
11/16/2005 10:07:17 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
I hardly think the phyisical attributes of DNA to be devoid of statistical/mathematical analysis, and thus arguments pointing toward the reasonable inference of intelligent design.
To: furball4paws; Liberal Classic
He forgot:
But pot
Hits the spot
To: Fester Chugabrew
I hardly think the phyisical attributes of DNA to be devoid of statistical/mathematical analysis, and thus arguments pointing toward the reasonable inference of intelligent design.
Yes, but every statistical argument presented in that regard has been shown to be founded upon faulty assumptions. In any case, swmobuffalo did not reference any statistical analysis at all. Swmobuffalo stated quite clearly that the basis for his or her rejection of anything apart from intelligent design was his or her own inability to comprehend anything other than that. That is an argument from incredulity and a logical fallacy. Why are you attempting to turn swmobuffalo's argument into something that it was not?
630
posted on
11/16/2005 10:13:56 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Comment #631 Removed by Moderator
To: Dimensio
Keep in mind that Fester thinks that everyone should assume . . . You must know the mind of Fester better than Fester. Are you the one I've been praying to all these years?
To: Fester Chugabrew
You must know the mind of Fester better than Fester.
I'm going by what you've said in the past.
633
posted on
11/16/2005 10:17:52 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Stingy Dog
I don't recall the statement you're alluding to. Can you just quote me and ask me a question about it?
Highball said, speaking of ID, that it is not scientific. You replied with "I never said it's scientific."
634
posted on
11/16/2005 10:19:27 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
Please explain the difference between a "starting premise" and a "conclusion."
To: furball4paws
Thanks for the explanation.
636
posted on
11/16/2005 10:23:24 PM PST
by
zot
(GWB -- four more years!)
To: Fester Chugabrew
Please explain the difference between a "starting premise" and a "conclusion."
In the logic system/argument
1) If A then B
2) A
3) B
Statements 1 and 2 are the starting premises and statement 3 is the conclusion.
637
posted on
11/16/2005 10:24:26 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: highball
You have an emotional response to something, and actually equate that with physical evidence?Wow. That's the best indictment of "ID is science" that I've seen so far. Thanks.
Which...brings...us...back...to...DOE! (D'OH !) ;-) ;-) ;-)
From the first post on this thread: "Anybody who reads this article and feels no astonishment is either stupid or not paying attention."
638
posted on
11/16/2005 10:24:37 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Dimensio
That's okay. You're right, too. I am motivated by a tautology that has scientific veractiy: God created the heavens and the earth and keeps them going. They are intelligently designed in a fashion that exceeds the intelligence of His creation. He knows their ulitimate purpose and direction.
His creation, the human portion, struggles to comprehend His magnificent works. That small segment of His creation engages in science. They can't even figure out that oil is not the be all and end all of energy. They're so stuck in evolutionist notions they can't conceive there is enough energy in a single kernel of corn to electrify 28 LEDS on a red light whore board.
To: highball
I delight to inform you that the evidence for black holes is inferential at this time. No one has touched one. Would you care to be the first?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 601-620, 621-640, 641-660 ... 1,201-1,219 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson