|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
ringo writes:
Ed67 writes:
Of course you can. The only "code" is the arrangement of the molecule. Every molecule has an arrangement which determines its reactions. What's so hard to understand about that? The CODE for building proteins necessary for life. In a molecule. Now you can't say that about salt.If you could stop being hypnotized by words like "code" and "embedded", maybe you could start to understand the chemistry. You are desperate to squash the idea of a code embedded in the DNA/RNA molecule. Where do you think I got those quotes from? Did you click the links? It's not Creationist Propaganda - it's right in front of your face, from mainstream scientific sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
subbie writes: Ed67 writes:
Well, I know you got one of them from James Watson, who thinks intelligent design is only for the uneducated. It's almost like you and Watson were using the word "code" in completely different ways. Where do you think I got those quotes from? Food for thought. ...Yes, it's food for thought that even a committed materialist must admit that they've found a code in DNA. What's wrong with the rest of you guys?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Taq writes: I don't see a code. Can you please describe it for me? Here, I'll let the good folks at the University of Washington tell you what they see...
quote:Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW News And here's the opening sentences of the abstract:
quote:Just a moment... Two different codes now! Sounds pretty complex to me.And the codes are specified to produce different results. Here we go again, leading, recent research uncovers more of the specified complexity of the DNA molecule. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
subbie writes: You keep quoting James Watson as if his comments support your position when he has explicitly rejected your position and you ask what's wrong with us. As i've established, Watson's factual findings support my position. His personal opinion is irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
subbie writes: Ed67 writes:
I see. So your understanding of the implication of DNA is superior to that of one of the people who discovered its structure. As i've established, Watson's factual findings support my position. His personal opinion is irrelevant. Curiouser. You're curiousest
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
ringo writes:
Did you notice the one from the University of Washington?
Ed67 writes:
All I'm saying is that the "code" that's "embedded" in DNA is its structure - and that every other molecule has its own structure too, so every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way.
You are desperate to squash the idea of a code embedded in the DNA/RNA molecule.Ed67 writes:
I'm assuming that you got the quotes accurately from Crick and/or Watson. I don't know where you got your misunderstanding of those quotes. They don't mean what you think they mean. Where do you think I got those quotes from? Since you don't understand chemistry, you can't expect to understand quotes about chemistry. And, since you know so much about chemistry, and are dying to share it, would you please explain your statement:
ringo writes: ...so every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way [as DNA]. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
I wasn't talking to you, turnip head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
DA writes: But it's not extra, that's the point that ringo's trying to make. You couldn't, for example, remove the "information" in the DNA but leave the chemistry, or remove the chemistry but leave the "information". You are correct. The code necessary to sustain life is integrated with the chemistry of the DNA molecule, of course. Marvellous, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Is that an invitation, or a threat?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
ringo writes: Ed67 writes:
Of course you can. The only "code" is the arrangement of the molecule. Every molecule has an arrangement which determines its reactions. What's so hard to understand about that? The CODE for building proteins necessary for life. In a molecule. Now you can't say that about salt. Uhh, sorry ringo cuz I know that you're a real chemistry enthusiast, but I have to tell you: SALT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE CODE FOR BUILDING OF PROTEINS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
ringo writes:
All I'm saying is that... every molecule has a "code" that's "embedded" in it exactly the same way.[as DNA] Do you have any citations, evidence, or explanation to back up this statement? I'm still waiting... Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ed67 Member (Idle past 3359 days) Posts: 159 Joined: |
Tangle writes: To get back to the discussion, it seems pretty easy to me to accept Demski's meaning of the terms Complex Specified Information. His own example is pretty clear:"A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified." He's just saying that life looks designed therefore it is. That argument is no more than the Watchmaker argument and can be debated as though it is. His attempt to move the argument further was to introduce mathematics into the game and claim that if he calculates the probability of something happening by chance to be less than 10^150, then it requires a designer. The problem is therefore mathematical not semantic and if you can't discuss it mathematically, there's no point proceding beyond the Watchmaker stage. Wrong. You JUST QUOTED Dembski in saying that a long string of random letters is complex but not specified, disqualifying it as a candidate for design. Obviously there's more to Dembski's argument than raw probability. There's also SPECIFICITY. Your over - simplification is a SRAW MAN.
Tangle writes: Sadly for ID, those that have considered mathematically and are qualified to do so, tell us that it's bunk. Do you expect us to take YOUR word for it? Please provide citations. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given. Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024