Ultra-sensitive microscope reveals DNA processes

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

[Kelly_2000]

agreed

[WildHorseCrash]

The question was, how can anyone not recognize the blueprint of design.

No, the question is: is there anyone so irrational that they see in modern science an affirmation of their pathetic belief in 4,000 year old goat herders' myths? And by your response, the answer is: Yes.

Your copycat attempt to discredit and make me look absurd failed. Try again.

Actually, your adherence to Bronze Age fairy tales, and treating the Genesis myth as scientific fact discredits you and makes you look absurd.

[WildHorseCrash]

I thought it was fine. I think it was blunt and truthful. This was an astonishing feat.

[jonboy]

Proud to wear my "absurd" belief in God and creation as a badge of honor. One day, you will believe in God.

[WildHorseCrash]

And, according to the Islamofascists, one day Allah will send you to hell. Everybody's got their stories...

[mtntop3]

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

Seeing into intricacies of creation appropriately brings about natural feelings of wonder and astonishment.

It also frequently brings about profound arrogance through erroneously assuming that the act of seeing is akin to the act of creation, thereby making the viewer the creator and maker of the universe.

"..no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." Ecclesiastes 3:11.

"The Lord knows the thoughts of men, that they are but a puff of wind." Psalm 94:11.

[Antonello]

No problem. Evolutionists are always trying to retract their Freudian slips. All is forgiven. But unless you've got a friend on the mod staff, the words are etched in stone.

Forgive? Yes.
Forget? Not a chance, especially when the error is potential future ammunition.

Is that the Christian way, or do you doubt the sincerity of snarks_when_bored's apology?

[Kelly_2000]

"and that complete knowledge comes only through Faith ."

actually that contradicts the definition of faith IMO faith is a belief without knowledge:

faith (fth) KEY

NOUN:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

[shuckmaster]

How does anyone look at the wonder of DNA and think "accident" and "random chance"?

Not me! I think biological chemistry in action!

[Kelly_2000]

LOL

[b_sharp]

"I'm sorry but this experiment does not show any evidence of any supernatural power, where on Earth did you derive that?"

I made the mistake of reading and responding to that post after 3 hours of sleep and before ingestion of sufficient caffeine. My resultant stupidity lead me to believe IDists couldn't claim polymerase actions as being designed therefore assumed they would be forced to admit their religious basis.

At this rate I will give myself a headache well before lunch.

[Rudder]

By whose authority are the limits of scientific inquiry set?

Because science and its method cannot answer "why?" questions. "Why" implies implies intention, such as that of an intelligent designer or a god, and science is not capable of answering such questions. If you were a scientist, you would have known this. It's common knowledge among scientists.

[hawkaw]

BTTT

[tallhappy]

As an aside, note that the RNA polymerase, once brought into contact with the DNA strand, simply begins its replicative journey, moving along the strand one base pair at a time (as the experiment apparently demonstrates for the very first time). 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. This base-pair by base-pair copying motion must simply be what the chemical structure of RNA does.

This is not written correctly at all.

You really don't know what DNA, RNA or a polymerase are, do you?

[furball4paws]

Absolutely fantastic. I never though I'd see such a thing in my lifetime.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Why" does not always imply intention. It may simply be a way of asking about causes, which science does all the time. Furthermore, to state point blank that science cannot address matters of "intention" is perhaps your opinion, but little more than that.

[hawkaw]

Could you please write it correctly?

[furball4paws]

Crap.

[Kelly_2000]

LOL :-) I sympathize and know where you are coming from, I have pulled an all nighter with spreadsheets at the moment and lots of coffee :-(

[Kelly_2000]

"This is not written correctly at all.

You really don't know what DNA, RNA or a polymerase are, do you?"

I think I made this point a little while ago, but don't beat him up too much on this, he apologized too :-)