On the Origin of Codes, Computers, and Clocks...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Sooooo clocks are now proof of ID. boy what a stretch. How about these jokers doing actual real research instead of comparing apples and oranges

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Yep, clocks, computers and codes - Evolution at work

---

I think the thread creator and the unevolutionary website writers mistake analogies for evidence. The use of an anoalogy is so that lay people such as the one starting this thread can understand the intracacies of a biological process by showing how everything works together as a factory full of workers. Knowing that we don't have miniature men making these molecules, we can assume that the evolutionary process took a great deal of time to come up with a semi foolproof system of organelles to produce proteins and create life.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

It would help if you understood what you read.

Or if you related correctly what you have read.

Or if you stopped being disingenuous about what you have read.

It would also do you ALL some good to stop being bigots about this science.

It would also help if you all stopped being hypocrites.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

It would help if you understood what you read.

Or if you related correctly what you have read.

Or if you stopped being disingenuous about what you have read.

It would also do you ALL some good to stop being bigots about this science.

It would also help if you all stopped being hypocrites.

Show me some science first and we'll see.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

I.D. have you actually read, and understood, any of the articles they refer to. All they have done is cherry pick from the press release.

Now if you read Structural Phylogenomics Retrodicts the Origin of the Genetic Code and Uncovers the Evolutionary Impact of Protein Flexibility, you will find it does not support ID at all.

Because it's only your idea of science.

I'm very much a Christian man. Catholic. My Faith is a very important in my life.. It permeates my whole life. I will not deny my God.
I will defend my God in forums.

Why do you keep doing this?

The bible refutes evolution as your god made us.

Catholicism and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive.

You can only be one or the other not both.

So which is it?

---

Because it's only your idea of science.

I'm very much a Christian man. Catholic. My Faith is a very important in my life.. It permeates my whole life. I will not deny my God.
I will defend my God in forums.

Why do you keep doing this?

The bible refutes evolution as your god made us.

Catholicism and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive.

You can only be one or the other not both.

So which is it?

Do not EVER attack my personal Faith again!


Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
~Pope John Paul II


Return to topic...

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

Do not EVER attack my personal Faith again!


Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
~Pope John Paul II


Return to topic...

Why? I'm a catholic so why are you different? Is it because you blindly follow?

Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes? Really?

Where's the proof that the God Catholics believe is the one true one?

---

There is no science to this thread so why is it back here.

Wikipedia describes the Discovery Institute, and all its branches quite well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[7] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[8][9][10] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[7][9][11] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[12] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[13][14] It was the Federal Court's opinion that intelligent design was merely a redressing of creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

And if the general science community and a federal court says there is no science here then there isn't. Basically Intelligent Design is a religious SHAM and that's all it will ever be.

If there is science then try and prove it scientifically to us and you'll have to try a lot harder than you have so far.

Cheers.

How about some of us learning a little science history--it is the history of Mankind.


There was a large prize offered by the British admiralty to whomever could develop an accurate enough clock that could be used for navigation. What do you know about it and the eventual winner.


Can you explain how the greeks were able to estimate the size of the Earth using a notion of simultaneous time. How did they determine the time involved.



Why did the erasable genius (Babbage) fail in his try at developing his Difference Engine, What was the principle behind it's work.

Explain how a Hamming code works. Can a code be made to correct a two bit error per byte on the fly ?

Because it's only your idea of science.

I'm very much a Christian man. Catholic. My Faith is a very important in my life.. It permeates my whole life. I will not deny my God.
I will defend my God in forums.

Why do you keep doing this?

The bible refutes evolution as your god made us.

Catholicism and Intelligent Design are mutually exclusive.

You can only be one or the other not both.

So which is it?

Do not EVER attack my personal Faith again!


Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
~Pope John Paul II


Return to topic...

ID, Sirus did not attack your faith, he questioned your logic. Don't get all bent over logical questions.

---

No science at all in this thread, please move along now.

Cheers.

No science at all in this thread, please move along now.

Cheers.

Some would argue that a link to any episode of "Through the Wormhole"
holds the promise of beaucoup science.
Chill Out Dude.

And what makes you think that your link was included in my comment DUDE?

Maybe it should be you who needs to chill out buddy.

Cheers.

Do I have to educate people again.

This thread and the "Engineers Envious...." thread are links to Intelligent Design (ID). So they are not science.

I refer you to posts 1423888 and 1415302. Which give the opinions of The US courts and Science institutions on ID.

If all these bodies say ID is not science then I cannot see why these threads are on a science board.

So why is there such a strong demand to move this thread to politics? Does it really matter whether it remains in Science (non-Seti) or if it is moved to Politics? If so, why?

Besides the other reasons given, the precedent set up from the very beginning of the Science (non-SETI) and Politics fora.

By his own admission:

Do not EVER attack my personal Faith again!

We all know what this is about. Even you.

Good post Guy. However me old china, you could be making a rod for your own back :)

It seems your stint as a mod is making you more responsible, so when your stint is over, can we expect to continue to see those responsible posts? :)

---

http://www.frame-poythress.org/is-intelligent-design-science/

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

""Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.

...

However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes. For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria. There are many types of flagella, some simpler than others, and many species of bacteria do not have flagella to aid in their movement. Thus, other components of bacterial cell membranes are likely the precursors of the proteins found in various flagella. In addition, some bacteria inject toxins into other cells through proteins that are secreted from the bacterium and that are very similar in their molecular structure to the proteins in parts of flagella. This similarity indicates a common evolutionary origin, where small changes in the structure and organization of secretory proteins could serve as the basis for flagellar proteins. Thus, flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex.

...

Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science. Scientists continually test their ideas against observations and submit their work to their colleagues for critical peer review of ideas, evidence, and conclusions before a scientific paper is published in any respected scientific journal. Unexplained observations are eagerly pursued because they can be signs of important new science or problems with an existing hypothesis or theory. History is replete with scientists challenging accepted theory by offering new evidence and more comprehensive explanations to account for natural phenomena. Also, science has a competitive element as well as a cooperative one. If one scientist clings to particular ideas despite evidence to the contrary, another scientist will attempt to replicate relevant experiments and will not hesitate to publish conflicting evidence. If there were serious problems in evolutionary science, many scientists would be eager to win fame by being the first to provide a better testable alternative. That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence."

"Today, however, “ID” refers to a specific movement that became famous with the 1991 publication of Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial. Johnson is a Christian and a professor of law at the University of California,Berkeley. Other prominent members of the movement are Michael Behe and William Dembski. Behe and Dembski are scientists. Johnson is not, but as a lawyer he has considerable skill at criticizing arguments, and he has used that skill impressively in debunking Darwinist claims."

William Dembski is not a scientist. He's a mathematician, philosopher and theologian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

I must also agree that whether or not ID is science may still be up for debate. If you look into ID, there are many parts to it that AGREE with evolution theory and the IDers are merely proposing alternate cause and effects. This CLEARLY shows that there is at least SOME parts of it that can be called science. Since the ID'ers also believe in the science of cause and effect, it stands the test of scientific reason that this string of cause and effects started with a single act from an intelligent being (as opposed to random chance, given the odds, and the lack of proof otherwise.)

The conclusion isn't supported by any available evidence. Again, quoting from the above link:

"The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science."

Is it pure faith? Absolutely not. Is it pure science? Absolutely not. Is it pure politics? Absolutely not.

ID is pure faith, is not supported by any science other than the pseudo-sience called Intelligent Design, and is largely motivated by Politics from a portion of the Christian religious sect in an attempt to have one of their foundational beliefs, that a Creator created everything, is true as their Bible recalls.

So why is there such a strong demand to move this thread to politics? Does it really matter whether it remains in Science (non-Seti) or if it is moved to Politics? If so, why?

It matters as much to us in proving to the poster known as ID that his beliefs are not backed by science as it is for the poster known as Intelligent Design who purposefully posts these in science to validate his own belief system.


Until the poster known as Intelligent Design actually starts engaging in discussion, that is, answers direct challenges to his assertions and beliefs instead of accusing the entire message board of intellectual dishonesty, incompetence in understanding the pseudo-science called Intelligent Design, and bigotry, discussion will never be possible. If he is going to assert his beliefs are true and correct, he cannot take it personal when someone directly challenges him to provide additional proof or evidence from unbiased sources.

Ultimately, I feel if the poster known as Intelligent Design is going to continue on as he does, it would be best if everyone simply ignored all of his posts and his false assertions and arguments. If the entire message board turned their back on him in response to his belligerence and denigrating accusations, then perhaps he'll get the message - because he's certainly not getting the message with banishments.