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 ... 661-680, 681-700, 701-720 ... 1,201-1,219 next last
To: airborne; Ichneumon
"I *do* wish we could have a science discussion that just talked about the science, but that has proven to be an unachievable goal here." there seems to be too much emotional equity in most of the arguments here, this results in slanging matches. I had hoped for an enlightening scientific debate on this topic. so far we are going out on ID tangents
681
posted on
11/17/2005 5:51:10 AM PST
by
Kelly_2000
( (Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch))
To: Ichneumon; r9etb
r9etb - "While Hitler may have used parts of the Bible to justify his "master race" theories, it is not true that they were inspired by the Bible. Ichneumon - "This sounds like splitting hairs."
IMHO, 'r9etb' has a valid argument here.
682
posted on
11/17/2005 5:54:10 AM PST
by
airborne
(Al-Queda can recruit on college campuses but the US military can't!)
To: highball
Scientists don't discount hunches. On the contrary, they rely on hunches. What they don't accept is the notion that hunches are a substitute for scientific evidence.Kind of what the whole experiment was about. Science had a 'hunch', but no definitive evidence.. No?
From the article - But that has left open the question of whether the RNAP enzyme actually climbs up the DNA ladder one rung at a time, or does it move instead in chunks for example, does it add three bases, then jump along and add another three bases.
683
posted on
11/17/2005 6:03:48 AM PST
by
airborne
(Al-Queda can recruit on college campuses but the US military can't!)
To: Kelly_2000
My definition of creation in the context of the universe is reconciled with scientific principle. Do you believe in miracles?
Did Jesus turn water into wine? Did Jesus walk upon the water? Did Jesus heal a man born blind? Did God write the 10 commandments on tablets of stone with his own hand?
Do you believe any of that stuff?
To: P-Marlowe
Hi
Please read my posts back to you, it seems you are repeating a separate set of off topic questions to me, why is that?
685
posted on
11/17/2005 6:07:01 AM PST
by
Kelly_2000
( (Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch))
To: CarolinaGuitarman
So in science, when you see something you can't personally explain, it's perfectly logical to say that nobody else can explain it too?That fairly well represents your point of view, not mine.
What other logical fallacies are open to the scientist?
Any, and every, one of them. But with the proviso their use may not lend credence to his statements. Now hop on your little rocking horse and tell everyone how logical fallacies are to be encouraged in scientific inquiry.
You apparently have a problem with the notion that intelligence and design can be scientifically ascertained. Do you really think one must engage in logical fallacies, e.g. arguments from incredulity, to infer that an automobile is the product of intelligent design, and, by extension, an intelligent designer?
Must be awfully dsutned in that sbrtl;ijbELE.
To: P-Marlowe
Do you believe any of that stuff? What does that have to do with science?
687
posted on
11/17/2005 6:08:38 AM PST
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: js1138
"What does that have to do with science?" or even the topic of dna and genetic expression?
688
posted on
11/17/2005 6:10:51 AM PST
by
Kelly_2000
( (Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch))
To: Kelly_2000
Please point to where I have called the Bible a "fable" thats a little insulting to be honest please stop Many evolutionists have referred to the bible stories as fables. That seems to be the general consensus among "Christian" evolutionists regarding the creation account in Genesis, the story of Noah, the Story of Jonah, etc. So my question was serious and not meant to be insulting. I just would like to get a feel for how you reconcile your evolution and your Christianity. Anyone can call himself a scientist and that does not mean that objectively they are a scientist. Likewise any atheist can call himself a Christian, but belief in God, I would think, is a prerequisite to being a Christian and IMO, belief in the God revealed in the Bible is such a prerequisite. (At least it used to be).
To: js1138
The list changes with available technology, but it will never include the supernatural. Except occasionally to demonstrate that a specific supernatural explanation is unproductive. While that is most likely true, I don't know if it is undeniably true. Science has evolved by leaps and bounds. Who knows what is yet to be discovered.
The very idea of connecting glass beads to either end of a single DNA strand is, to me, astounding.
690
posted on
11/17/2005 6:15:15 AM PST
by
airborne
(Al-Queda can recruit on college campuses but the US military can't!)
To: Kelly_2000
Please read my posts back to you, it seems you are repeating a separate set of off topic questions to me, why is that? Is that a yes? This is important. Did God write the 10 commandments on the tablets of stone with his own hand? Do you believe that?
It is not off topic as you claimed to reject entirely the idea that the creation was intelligently designed, yet you claim (apparently) to believe in the God of the Bible. I'm trying to see how you reconcile that in your mind.
You said you are more than willing to discuss this matter further. Have you changed your mind?
To: furball4paws
For those DNAs that are linear AFAIK, the ends do not contain information that gets translated. What do they contain?
692
posted on
11/17/2005 6:19:40 AM PST
by
airborne
(Al-Queda can recruit on college campuses but the US military can't!)
To: P-Marlowe
"Many evolutionists have referred to the bible stories as fables. That seems to be the general consensus among "Christian" evolutionists "
So basically I can derive from your comment here that you first made an assumption about ME. Took that to the next level and started to get hostile based on a preconceived view of my opinions without, giving me the courtesy of deciding what i think for myself. Is that it in a nutshell?
"So my question was serious and not meant to be insulting. I just would like to get a feel for how you reconcile your evolution and your Christianity."
try listening once in a while and maybe you will get my perspective correctly from the horse's mouth? This is just a friendly suggestion. :-)
"Anyone can call himself a scientist and that does not mean that objectively they are a scientist."
It is what I am trained to be, also my vocation. So that to me is sufficient. not sure what you mean here?
"Likewise any atheist can call himself a Christian, but belief in God, I would think, is a prerequisite to being a Christian and IMO, belief in the God revealed in the Bible is such a prerequisite. (At least it used to be)."
be careful it is for God alone to say who is and who is not a Christian. We tend as people to get that wrong usually. Case in point the religious crowd (scribes and pharisees) who where the religious establishment. And the criminal who was on the cross next to Jesus. Now according to your definition of a Christian the guy on the Cross next to Jesus was not a Christian.
693
posted on
11/17/2005 6:20:16 AM PST
by
Kelly_2000
( (Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch))
To: js1138
What does that have to do with science? I thought this was a religious discussion.
To: Fester Chugabrew
So in science, when you see something you can't personally explain, it's perfectly logical to say that nobody else can explain it too?
"That fairly well represents your point of view, not mine."
No, that IS your view, explicitly stated in your approval of the argument from incredulity. You DID know what that meant, right?
"Any, and every, one of them. But with the proviso their use may not lend credence to his statements. Now hop on your little rocking horse and tell everyone how logical fallacies are to be encouraged in scientific inquiry."
Why shouldn't I? You are saying they are just fine.
"You apparently have a problem with the notion that intelligence and design can be scientifically ascertained."
Design, yes. We have asked you repeatedly for a definition of design yet you keep ducking. Why is that I wonder?
"Do you really think one must engage in logical fallacies, e.g. arguments from incredulity, to infer that an automobile is the product of intelligent design, and, by extension, an intelligent designer?"
An automobile has a designer we all know a great deal about; US. Your use of this example is in itself a logical fallacy, as the existence of intelligent designers (us) does not in any way throw light on who the hypothetical Intelligent Designer of the Universe could be.
"Must be awfully dsutned in that sbrtl;ijbELE."
Drinking this early?
695
posted on
11/17/2005 6:24:26 AM PST
by
CarolinaGuitarman
("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
To: P-Marlowe
"It is not off topic as you claimed to reject entirely the idea that the creation was intelligently designed, yet you claim (apparently) to believe in the God of the Bible. I'm trying to see how you reconcile that in your mind" I completely answered that in post 677 did you read any of it?
696
posted on
11/17/2005 6:26:11 AM PST
by
Kelly_2000
( (Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch))
To: Kelly_2000
So basically I can derive from your comment here that you first made an assumption about ME. Took that to the next level and started to get hostile based on a preconceived view of my opinions without, giving me the courtesy of deciding what i think for myself. Is that it in a nutshell?I meant nothing hostile. I was simply trying to see how you reconcile your Christianity with your denial of the idea that life was intelligently designed.
It appears I have struck a nerve with you. So since it is obvious that you don't want to answer any of the questions I have posited, I will stop asking them.
Carry on.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
698
posted on
11/17/2005 6:33:00 AM PST
by
Doctor Stochastic
(Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
To: Ichneumon
Or as Niven and Pournelle put it in "Inferno", their sci-fi spoof on Dante, "I'm not sure I want to worship a god who keeps a torture chamber in his basement." Sublime!
699
posted on
11/17/2005 6:36:27 AM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: P-Marlowe
"I meant nothing hostile. I was simply trying to see how you reconcile your Christianity with your denial of the idea that life was intelligently designed. " OK thats fine please proceed to post 677 where I presented my views and perspectives unambiguously and in crystal clarity. I look forward to hearing your informed opinions after that :-)
700
posted on
11/17/2005 6:38:49 AM PST
by
Kelly_2000
( (Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680, 681-700, 701-720 ... 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