What is point in doing science...

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


So there is intelligence in DNA, really?

Prove it.




posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Read the latest articles on DNA research...

This is a clip from a PBS production called "DNA: The Secret of Life."

DNA Replication
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jtmOZaIvS0
www.youtube.com...


 


What is point in doing science...?

Proving God!!
edit on 7-11-2013 by AbleEndangered because: addition



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


It seems science can explain very little and little more even still if encumbered by the oppressive yoke of religion.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


That's not proving it. That's deflecting. You made the claim, now back it up.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


So there is intelligence in DNA, really?

Prove it.



Im not a teacher, and Im not here to prove anything to you.
Do your own damn research.

Besides if the DNA didnt contain information(intelligence) then there would be no species, no cells, no life.
Its not rocket science. Really its not.
edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmThu, 07 Nov 2013 14:47:54 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


If people don't like reading. Watch...

DNA 2of5 Playing God
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzmqvyWXEes
www.youtube.com...


All coding, programming language. That needed an Author!!

The Programmer!!



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

AbleEndangered


What is point in doing science...?

Proving God!!


Haha, exactly. But its only apparent to those with the eyes to see.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   

OneManArmy
Im not a teacher, and Im not here to prove anything to you.
Do your own damn research.


Wait, if you found proof good enough for you to believe we and everything in universe was created, why not share it with rest of humans?

Unless your idea is based only on personal wish.

I am receiving and following weekly PNAS, but nothing so far on proof of ID.

It is not hard to sign for it, and you seem willing to learn, so here is link:

www.pnas.org...



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

SuperFrog

OneManArmy
Im not a teacher, and Im not here to prove anything to you.
Do your own damn research.


Wait, if you found proof good enough for you to believe we and everything in universe was created, why not share it with rest of humans?



Believe me its not like I havent dropped enough hints and clues as to why I make my assumptions.
Its seems that you would rather ignore what I have already shared "with the rest of humans".
While you have shared the opinion of a comedian, and that your are a paid up member to a website that sells you "truth". lol.

edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmThu, 07 Nov 2013 14:56:02 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


Have you heard of the Infinite Monkey Theorem?


The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces an endless random sequence of letters and symbols. The relevance of the theorem is questionable—the probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time even a hundred thousand orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but not zero).


However, what the theorem fails to include in its calculations is survival. Imagine if those monkeys were punished every time they typed a letter. Eventually, that particular letter would be omitted altogether. Now imagine if they were punished if they picked a particular combination in the wrong order. Eventually, it would be narrowed down to a specific order, one that resulted in, say, a cookie or something.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Imagine Infinite Monkey Theorem coupled with Natural Selection. What then, Sherlock? What then?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


Have you heard of the Infinite Monkey Theorem?


The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces an endless random sequence of letters and symbols. The relevance of the theorem is questionable—the probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time even a hundred thousand orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but not zero).


However, what the theorem fails to include in its calculations is survival. Imagine if those monkeys were punished every time they typed a letter. Eventually, that particular letter would be omitted altogether. Now imagine if they were punished if they picked a particular combination in the wrong order. Eventually, it would be narrowed down to a specific order, one that resulted in, say, a cookie or something.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Imagine Infinite Monkey Theorem coupled with Natural Selection. What then, Sherlock? What then?


Funny that you should throw in survival, upon creation of the first metaphorical work of shakespeare, hence the first manifestation of the first DNA or cell. Cells need food, so what are the chances of 2 works of shakespeare coming into existence at the same time to allow one lifeform to devour the other to facilitate its reproduction. And then we have the problem for yet another life form to exist to facilitate the energy required for the first lifeform to continue its reproduction.

So we are left with a paradox. Or the spontaneous appearance of multiple lifeforms all at the same time.

Even monkeys have intelligence.
edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmThu, 07 Nov 2013 15:14:46 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 




Funny that you should throw in survival, upon creation of the first metaphorical work of shakespeare, hence the first manifestation of the first DNA or cell. Cells need food, so what are the chances of 2 works of shakespeare coming into existence at the same time to allow one lifeform to devour the other to facilitate its reproduction. And then we have the problem for yet another life form to exist to facilitate the energy required for the first lifeform to continue its reproduction.


I haven't gotten that far. I've spent too much time explaining the first few chapters to people who don't like to read anything other than the Bible.


So we are left with a paradox. Or the spontaneous appearance of multiple lifeforms all at the same time.

Even monkeys have intelligence.


No, YOU are left with a paradox. I intend to educate myself in the matter.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   

AfterInfinity



No, YOU are left with a paradox. I intend to educate myself in the matter.


Actually upon reflection I will refute my own previous argument with regards to cellular reproduction.

Upon thinking of the food chain, and its symbiosis, I have realised that at the very bottom of the food chain are single cell lifeforms that sustain plankton. Now these single cell organisms reproduce somehow, meaning they get the resources(energy and mineral material) from somewhere.
If there is a single cell life form that can reproduce from non living sourced matter, then I will adapt my view.

The source of life is still a very theoretical subject. If our greatest biologist minds cannot answer it, how can any of us...yet. We can simply make assumptions based on the evidence that we can measure repeatedly, and propose ideas as to what the evidence means.
When theorists make assumptions on their view of the evidence its called science, when I do it on a public forum with some "intelligent" people, its not?
edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmThu, 07 Nov 2013 15:34:45 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


I see no point in continuing to discuss this with you until we have both educated ourselves further in the matter. Otherwise, we both know how it will end. With all due respect, I'll take my leave from this conversation. Thank you and good evening.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


I see no point in continuing to discuss this with you until we have both educated ourselves further in the matter. Otherwise, we both know how it will end. With all due respect, I'll take my leave from this conversation. Thank you and good evening.


Good evening.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Good morning!

To conclude, I think that really topic has ground, as there is no point in doing science if you will validate all found trough God and holy books.

We know that so called holy books are not accurate (As Bill the science guy would say - moon is not source of light as written in bible) nor they contain moral ground that reflect human's moral norm of today (slavery, women rights, LGBT rights, unmoral laws etc.) and therefor it is absurd to try to validate any scientific findings of today through them.

And once again, there is no proof of intelligent design or God, but there is still wast area for science to tackle... and thankfully we are working on it...

 


For all those interested in science, good source is PNAS - Proceeding of the National Academy of Science.

On their web site, you have access to archive. which dates back to 1915. (sometimes it is interesting just to browse trough those papers)

Also worth checking is American Journal of Medicine.

With internet, data and information is available to everyone, please spend some time, research.




edit on 8-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

SuperFrog
With internet, data and information is available to everyone, please spend some time, research.

No thanks, I rather read creationist websites that confirm my bias. Screw reality



posted on Nov, 12 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I'm just happy that this fraudulent organisation is shutting down. Science matters. It's hilarious how that guy takes ancient outdated texts over scientific experimentation and his reasoning is god-awful. So god gave you a mind and you expect science to work out since it was all logically created, yet you'll blindly believe an ancient text as absolute while ignoring any evidence that proves it wrong. What a joke! Does that not go against what you just stated? How can you call that museum scientific when it ignores 90% of known proven science? This only proves that morons still exist.
edit on 12-11-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
What's most stupid is why everyone think that everyone else needs to think and act like they do, or they're wrong. It takes all types for the world to work, we can't all be stupid atheists.





top topics
 
11
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join