Ultra-sensitive microscope reveals DNA processes

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

[b_sharp]

I'm afraid that too little sleep, too little caffeine and too much hope that IDists will be forced to admit the truth makes for a bad start to the morning.

I don't even have a spreadsheet as an excuse. I simply spent too much time tossing and turning while trying to untwist ID logic.

[GallopingGhost]

The only thing we know is that we don't know - and that complete knowledge comes only through Faith .

Now there is a sentence just begging for an "IMHO".

[furball4paws]

What most people have missed so far is that this device shows what is actually happening and that it follows all the indirect evidence of the last 50 years. It is confirmation of models derived from much serious biochemical and molecular biological study.

Making it more than that at this point is unjustified, but the experiment is nonetheless quite a step forward. I love it.

[VadeRetro]

... and that complete knowledge comes only through Faith .

Or complete delusion.

[furball4paws]

Uncle Fester! We haven't seen you around much lately, (which ever one you are). Welcome back!

Must have been one big hangover.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Now why does the RNA do this? Nobody (in their right mind) would suggest that it has a will and is acting intentionally, or that some unseen deity's hand is continually pushing it along, so it must be acting as its chemical structure compels it to act.

It's the unseen RNA pushing deity that makes it occur. Let's see...that would be URNAPD.

URNAPD is the alternative theory to ID. I think the Kansas school board should require URNAPD be taught.

Why are ID'ers so afraid to debate URNAPD??? They're so dogmatic and elitist. /sarcasm

[GOPPachyderm]

No, but the words creator, designer DO come to mind due to the limitless details we observe in creation. It stretches credulity to think it could have come about by time and chance. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics scientifically supports that observation. There is no need to use derogatory words such as "sky-god" to express opposition to a belief in a Creator who designed the universe and all that exists.

From the book of John "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not comprehend it."

[Kelly_2000]

"What most people have missed so far is that this device shows what is actually happening and that it follows all the indirect evidence of the last 50 years."

I made this point earlier no one listened then either

[Kelly_2000]

LOL poor you don't let them get to you like that :-)

[b_sharp]

I think that snarks_when_bored's 'why' was the intelligent intent 'why' not the 'what makes these work the way they do' why.

[Junior]

It's the FSM using his angel hair appendages...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

[b_sharp]

Good suggestion.

I think tonight I'll do something with probability, that always puts me to sleep.

[VadeRetro]

No, but the words creator, designer DO come to mind due to the limitless details we observe in creation.

Not to everyone's mind. Mechanistic theories also predict chaotic complexity.

It stretches credulity to think it could have come about by time and chance.

This looks like an argument from incredulity.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics scientifically supports that observation.

Argument from incredulity is not an observation. Creationists seem to have their own version of the second law and use it in ways that would disallow the formation of tornados or snowflakes.

[Kelly_2000]

LOL Schroedinger's cat counting?:-)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics scientifically supports that observation.

I like to ask this of everyone who posts this.

Show us your work. I'd like to see the calculations that demonstrate your conclusion.

[b_sharp]

"No, but the words creator, designer DO come to mind due to the limitless details we observe in creation. It stretches credulity to think it could have come about by time and chance. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics scientifically supports that observation.[Emphasis mine]

How so?

[b_sharp]

Been there, done that. It always confuses the heck out of me so I just don't look. (I'm afraid that the wave collapsing on me will leave me functionless).

[Kelly_2000]

"The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics scientifically supports that observation"

come again? Please elaborate? Is this a close system / open system faux-pas usually made by non-scientists?

[Kelly_2000]

"(I'm afraid that the wave collapsing on me will leave me functionless)."

The last time I suffered a collapsing wave was in Carlsbad beach on my husband's surf board ;-)