|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
PlanManStan writes:
There's a difference between divine intervention and intelligent design. Given a divine entity with the ability to intervene in a way that is observable by humans, can we assume that that entity has the ability to design and not just manipulate? ... they usually give me first-hand accounts of divine intervention. And if that entity could design (presumably) life on earth, did it? There's also a difference between possibility and history. Maybe Napoleon Bonaparte could have translated the Bible into Swedish but did he?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
PlanManStan writes:
I know you didn't. I was just pointing out the flaw in the argument, which requires two gaps in logic, not just one.
I never said (or didn't mean to) say that there was a similarity between ID and divine intervention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ed67 writes:
I would say that the molecule is the code. Are you suggesting that the code is "written on" the molecule by some designer? What would be the ink?
I think the only argument ID needs (though the concept has many) is in the digital code built into the DNA/RNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ed67 writes:
But the four bases are the DNA molecule. The "code" is nothing more than the molecule itself. A water molecule carries information too, in the same way, only less of it. It's just a molecule.
The 'ink' is the four bases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Ed67 writes:
Every molecule has a specific arrangement. There is nothing about the DNA molecule that is unique in that regard; the chemistry of DNA isn't fundamentally different from the chemistry of water. It does what it has to do. It could be said that life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry.
The 'code' is the SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENT of bases along the DNA molecule.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Ed67 writes:
You have that backwards. You're the one making the positive claim that the DNA molecule is unique, so you're the one who's required to substantiate it. Every chemical compound is unique in its own way but if you think DNA is "more unique" than water, for example, if you think it has some "special" chemistry, you need to show us your evidence for that.
ringo writes:
I'd like you to cite your source on this point, please, unless it's your opinion. There is nothing about the DNA molecule that is unique in its specific arrangement. Ed67 writes:
Again, you'd have to show how the chemistry is unique.
This doesn't sound like any water I've seen:"But what, exactly, is DNA? In short, DNA is a complex molecule that consists of many components, a portion of which are passed from parent organisms to their offspring during the process of reproduction." Nature - Not Found Misquoting me, Ed67 writes:
What I said was, "It could be said that life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry." Message 160 This is a science-oriented forum and we appreciate rigor, especially when it comes to quotes.
"Ringo" writes:Life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry. Ed67 writes:
I'm not awae that he disproved any such thing. Please explain.
What makes you think that? That's what Francis Crick hypothesized and disproved in the fifties, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ed67 writes:
Somebody already did that by pointing out that there is also a recipe for salt crystals embedded in Na and Cl. You need to show how that recipe is fundamentally different from the recipe in DNA.
Still waiting for an INTELLIGENT, reasoned response to my main argument for design; the existence of a RECIPE embedded in DNA/RNA that requires a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ed67 writes:
I'm sure we're all interested in hearing your take on it.
Are you aware of the basic course of research that Crick engaged in after finalizing the initial discovery of the double helix?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Ed67 writes:
They called it a code. I have not disputed that it can be called a code. What I'm saying is that it is nothing beyond the structure of the molecule, nothing that every other molecule doesn't carry. They had the common sense to call a spade a spade, and a code a code. The point you're (supposedly) responding to is the idea that life is a byproduct of DNA's structure. You claimed in Message 161 that Crick disproved that. Show us the disproof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Ed67 writes:
What you said in Message 161 was:
I ASKED whether Crick had disproven this idea, I didn't state it as fact.quote:You asked me to confirm what you seemed to be presenting as a fact. I'll remind you again that this is a science-oriented forum where precision is highly valued. Ed67 writes:
I have never disputed that scientists call the arrangement of the DNA molecule a "code". However, they could just as well call the arrangement of the water molecule a code or the arrangement of the salt molecule a code. There is nothing separate from the structure of the molecule. That's why I asked you initially what the "ink" was. If there's no ink, there's no need for a writer.
Now, do you agree that scientists have found what Crick called a 'code' embedded in the nucleic acids?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ed67 writes:
There is nothing "embedded" in the molecule; there is nothing "written on" the molecule; there is only the structure of the molecule. Cells are not built according to "instructions"; they are built by ordinary chemical reactions, a set of chemical reactions that is specific to the DNA molecule but that works on exactly the same principles as any other reaction.
Ringo, do you really not understand that the code embedded in the DNA is the instructions for building the cell? Ed67 writes:
I don't like to mention it because it was a long time ago and I've never worked in the field but I do have a Bachelor of Science degree.
A little more attention in high school biology would have prevented your misunderstanding...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Ed67 writes:
No. They don't. Just because somebody uses the word "embedded" doesn't mean that they think there is anything "extra". ringo writes:
Someone disagrees: There is nothing "embedded" in the molecule; there is nothing "written on" the molecule; there is only the structure of the molecule. I gave the example elsewhere of animal tracks in the snow. The tracks are "embedded" in he snow, if you must use that word, but they are not separate from the snow. They are just part of the shape of the snow. And they can provide "information" to a hunter even though they weren't put there by any intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Are you just posting random quotes now? How does what you quoted even address what I said?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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. Edited by ringo, : Speling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 402 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ed67 writes:
Let's say XY is a molecule with a "code" (its structure). We have a bunch of XY swimming around in a beaker with a bunch of W and a bunch of Z. An XY attaches to a W to make WXY. Then the WXY attaches to a Z to make ZWXY. Then the original XY separates, leaving ZW. You can't even understand the basic function of DNA. That's pretty much how chemistry works. Pop quiz: Can you spot the DNA?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024