Image via WikipediaYes:
DNA: Blueprint for Life
DNA - The Double Helix "The Blueprint of Life - Every cell in your body has the same "blueprint" or the same DNA. Like the blueprints of a house tell the builders how to construct a house, the DNA "blueprint" tells the cell how to build the organism."
DNA the blueprint for life.
DNA: blueprint of life.
No:
Genotype–phenotype mapping and the end of the ‘genes as blueprint’ metaphor
The Demise Of The 'Genetic Blueprint' Metaphor
-
Metaphor for DNA Required - “Blueprint” just won't do anymore ...
24 Feb 2009 ... Metaphor for DNA Required - “Blueprint” just won't do anymore. ... Previous attempts to renaming DNA saw the introduction of such terms as ...
news.softpedia.com/.../Metaphor-for-DNA-Required-105234.shtml - Cached-
The Demise Of The 'Genetic Blueprint' Metaphor
18 Dec 2008 ... Ironically, the harbinger of the demise of the genetic program-blueprint metaphor is the serious study of genomics itself. ...www.science20.com/rationally.../demise_genetic_blueprint_metaphor - Cached -
The demise of the genetic blueprint metaphor | Machines Like Us
4 Dec 2009 ... The demise of the genetic blueprint metaphor ... pushing what is clearly a flawed metaphor: the idea that the DNA sequence of an organism's ...
machineslikeus.com › View content - Cached -
Rationally Speaking: The demise of the genetic blueprint metaphor
18 Dec 2008 ... I was writing about the whole "information in DNA" fallacy a few .... I can see how the metaphor of genes as 'blueprints" could be a bad one ...
rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/.../demise-of-genetic-blueprint-metaphor. html
At its most general level, the metaphor "blueprint" is understood as a plan, as in, e.g., "Obama's blueprint for economic renewal". Most people don't interpret it as crudely literal, e.g., a sketch of what the thing is going to look like, inside and out.
Some people prefer the term "recipe".
Blueprints and Recipes: Gendered Metaphors for Genetic Medicine
by CM Condit - 2001 - Cited by 4 - Related articles
(1992) contends that the blueprint metaphor is the “predominant metaphor for genes andDNA fragments” (p. 1470), while Barbara Katz Rothman (1998) identi- ...
www.springerlink.com/index/u8j86503m711wv57.pdf
(1992) contends that the blueprint metaphor is the “predominant metaphor for genes andDNA fragments” (p. 1470), while Barbara Katz Rothman (1998) identi- ...
www.springerlink.com/index/u8j86503m711wv57.pdf
What do both have in common? Both imply an intelligent source. So, the very metaphors used to help us comprehend what is going on reek of intelligence. And both blueprints and recipes are forms of design. The darwinists thus say, "there is no intelligent design happening here, but we shall nonetheless use metaphors of intelligent design to explain what is happening here. Did we mention there is no intelligent design happening here?"
There is nothing I have read or heard about DNA that would cause me to think anything else but that it is the product of Intelligence. I think it is the darwinist faith that needs defending.
Related articles by Zemanta
21 comments:
You are completely begging the question here. You give me sources upon sources on explanations of explanations, YET you finish it off by stating:
"There is nothing I have read or heard about DNA that would cause me to think anything else but that it is the product of Intelligence. I think it is the darwinist faith that needs defending."
How do you justify the above conclusion as an explanation? Where is your evidence that it is the product of intelligence? You're giving nothing but the antiquated arguments used decades ago that were refuted at the time they were given. So I'll take your post as the answer to my question which would be, no you do not know how DNA works. You are also wrong in the 'darwinist faith' needing to be defended because you are the one declaring that only intelligence can be the producer of DNA. That means that you need to support this claim and that means the burden of proof lies on you, not me. So I ask, where is your evidence for this claim?
Hi Jonathan,
I haven't forgot your earlier posts, getting to them soon.
"you are the one declaring that only intelligence can be the producer of DNA."
Let's back up one step. We are looking at the same object on the ground. We have to decide if it was a designing intelligence is behind it. Could be yes. Could be no.
Now, look at DNA. What I am saying is that inferring an intelligent designer is at least as reasonable a conclusion as inferring that it is all the result of dumb luck and nothing more. Probabilities, not proofs.
Now, the more information-rich it all becomes, and the more complexity in the intricacies of the required processing, the more the evidence moves to my side of the ledger. The more Junk DNA is found to be non-junk, the more the evidence moves to my side.
Your belief that encoded information can arise from dumb processes is faith-based, because, in all of human experience, encoded, expressed information and instructions always entails intelligence. The most "natural" explanation is that there is a Mind behind nature's encoding/decoding/repair processes.
I've raised this point several times but I think it needs repeating. Cells, DNA, Plants, Animals etc are of no consequence unless there is that magic elixir we call life. Even if all the 'natural' forces in the world delicately intertwined DNA into that wonderful double helix it would be little more than a pretty rock. DNA is not life and life is not DNA. DNA, it could be inferred is vital to biological life much like the brain in vital to an animal's survival but neither the brain or the DNA is life itself. We can amuse ourselves all day long speculating about the function of DNA but without life DNA just kind of sits there.
"Let's back up one step. We are looking at the same object on the ground. We have to decide if it was a designing intelligence is behind it. Could be yes. Could be no."
Agreed.
"Now, look at DNA. What I am saying is that inferring an intelligent designer is at least as reasonable a conclusion as inferring that it is all the result of dumb luck and nothing more. Probabilities, not proofs."
Yes, I see the DNA, but I see it differently. I see adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine, dioxyribose and phosphate that code for specific proteins and the manufacturing of the body at whole while at the same time being one of the culprits to genetic disorders and various other terrible diseases. I also see point mutations, genetic drift, ERV's, natural selection and evolution building UP, not down as your inference implies, from one stage after another time and time again. When you use dumb luck as one of your counter arguments you show the lack of knowledge that you have concerning the topic at hand. It is not dumb luck, natural selection is not random chance. The probabilities you refer to are often fallacious themselves, being misinterpreted or going off a wholly biased hypothesis from the beginning in such that the conclusion will support the hypothesis. There are too many variables that are unknown to make a calculable decision on whether it is an improbability. You should use the 'proofs' rather than the probabilities to come to your conclusion, but in order to do that you need to understand the subject matter you are discussing, which in this case you lack.
"Now, the more information-rich it all becomes, and the more complexity in the intricacies of the required processing, the more the evidence moves to my side of the ledger. The more Junk DNA is found to be non-junk, the more the evidence moves to my side."
Right here you are referring to something that is completely vague; information. What information are you referring to? This needs to be defined before you can progress because right now as it stands you could substitute any number of definitions for information to support your theory while disregarding mine because it doesn't fit your definition at that time. So before you proceed you should probably answer these questions to further progress this conversation:
1. What is your definition of information in regards to DNA?
2. What is your definition of junk DNA, and how familiar are you with the terms in regards to what it actually means?
3. What do you mean by processing, and does it completely correlate with how actual slavish processing in computer coding works?
"Your belief that encoded information can arise from dumb processes is faith-based, because, in all of human experience, encoded, expressed information and instructions always entails intelligence."
Once again, refrain from using dumb luck as a basis of your counter argument as it shows your lack of understanding in this topic. Can you provide evidence on how empirical evidence is faith-based? You are assuming that thermodynamic, geothermic, chemical, and overall the fundamental physical laws, require intelligence. Do you have support for this fantastical claim?
"The most "natural" explanation is that there is a Mind behind nature's encoding/decoding/repair processes."
I hope you see the irony in this conclusion. If your god exists outside of our universe and outside of our time space then how could it be a 'natural' explanation, when in essence it is a supernatural explanation? This claim requires evidence as well so could you please provide it.
Joe, that argument is full or factual errors and complete fallacies. Do you have a basic knowledge of Biology? If you wish for me to point out your errors and fallacies then just ask and I will happy to.
Point out one error Jonathan.
Unlike you my biology doesn't start and end with the reading of some book someone else wrote. I actually observe the function and intertwining of various life forms. I observe the beginning of life and the passing of life. I have stood in awe as new babies leave their mother's wombs and I have stood by the bedsides as the life slowly ebbs out of senior citizens. I have watched as the body struggles for one last breath long after the soul has departed.
The problem you have is that you can't explain it so you dismiss it. You say my statement is full of factual errors. Name one. DNA is not life. Life is not DNA. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Is that too hard to understand? You can have a perfectly formed DNA and not have life. You can have life with malformed DNA.
Here you go Joe.
"Cells, DNA, Plants, Animals etc are of no consequence unless there is that magic elixir we call life."
You seem to think the definition of life IS life. In biology the definition of life is comprised of several different characteristics: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. Notice there is no injection of magic into these characteristics. So that's one mistake.
"Even if all the 'natural' forces in the world delicately intertwined DNA into that wonderful double helix it would be little more than a pretty rock."
I could be taking this to literally but DNA is not a rock, it is a molecule. Even if it was a rock or something similar to it it wouldn't be observable by the naked eye and because it is organic it will degrade ,like organic things tend to do, at a tremendously faster rate than the erosion of rock. There's two.
"DNA is not life and life is not DNA."
True, DNA is not life, but it allows for the production of an organism, which would be life because it would exhibit the 7 characteristics of life. Could you explain in non-metaphysical terms what the definition of life is to you? There's three.
"DNA, it could be inferred is vital to biological life much like the brain in vital to an animal's survival but neither the brain or the DNA is life itself."
DNA is ESSENTIAL, as in 100% necessary, for life to exist, yet you don't need a brain for an organisms survival. If you need examples let me know, they completely outnumber all animals in biomass and numbers. There's four.
Four errors and fallacies. On to your second post..
"Unlike you my biology doesn't start and end with the reading of some book someone else wrote. I actually observe the function and intertwining of various life forms."
Wow, arrogant and condescending much? You don't know my background in science so please don't assume it, it's just plain rude. Everyone observes the function and intertwining of various life forms every day, you are not the exception and should not see yourself as one.
"I observe the beginning of life and the passing of life. I have stood in awe as new babies leave their mother's wombs and I have stood by the bedsides as the life slowly ebbs out of senior citizens. I have watched as the body struggles for one last breath long after the soul has departed."
So this gives you claim to know more than I do, because you've stood in awe, because you've witnessed things? I've seen a baby born through videos, I've seen a couples emotional suffering due to their new baby having Treacher Collins Syndrome and I've also seen young individuals, middle aged individuals, and old aged individuals life not just ebb out of them but TAKEN from them. Does this mean I one up you? No, it doesn't. All this means is that I've witnessed things, but just because I've witnessed them does not mean I'm an automatic expert on them.
"The problem you have is that you can't explain it so you dismiss it. You say my statement is full of factual errors. Name one. DNA is not life. Life is not DNA. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Is that too hard to understand? You can have a perfectly formed DNA and not have life. You can have life with malformed DNA."
Actually, I'm attempting to explain it to you and Mr.Ball, whether you are willing to learn something is up to you. DNA is essential for life because without it life is non-existent. Also, just exactly where do you think that 'perfectly' formed DNA exists if not in an organism? Do you have evidence that you can have life without malformed DNA? Please provide evidence for these assertions and the explanations for the factual errors and fallacies I've pointed out in the top part of this post. Thank you.
Now you see Jonathan you didn't rebut anything I said. In fact you enforced my point.
Now if you have any questions about the validity of my position simply take a pound of hamburger out of the freezer and make a living cow out of it. No you can not use the DNA from the hamburger and implant it into a cow's egg. You have to simply take that DNA and bring it to life. You know give it homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. When you have accomplished that then we can have an intelligent discussion about DNA and life. Until then your fancy biological terms are simply anti-theist argle bargle.
Oh by the way what I describe as a rock is simply an inanimate object of indeterminate size you know, what DNA is without life. But I suspected you knew that to begin with.
Having had to run away before my complete thought was ready for publication I was wondering if anyone else noticed that Jonathan didn't say what life was but rather described what life does.
To use a hackneyed expression; Jonathan said that "IT rolls down the road". Wonderful but what is IT? Is IT a car? Is IT a truck? Is IT a tractor? Is IT a go kart? Or is IT a bowling ball? We have no way of knowing other than IT rolls down the road.
Homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction does not define life rather it gives a rather pathetic description of what one could expect (assume) a living being might do.
Also interesting what is left out of Jonathan's list of life. Anyone notice? It is death. Living things do what non living things can not do and that is die. If life is more than a bunch of amino acids bumping into each other can there be any greater proof than death? In death you find the same chemicals in exactly the same order as you would find in the living but they are not active, or animated. They just kind of sit there as the formerly living objects break down into their constituent parts.
Part 1:
"Now you see Jonathan you didn't rebut anything I said. In fact you enforced my point."
True, I didn't rebut anything AS IT WASN'T MY PURPOSE FROM THE BEGINNING. I told you that there were factual errors and fallacies and then I pointed them out. No refutation was needed. You do understand that I was ONLY showing where you were wrong and how and NOT refutting your statements, right?
"Now if you have any questions about the validity of my position simply take a pound of hamburger out of the freezer and make a living cow out of it. No you can not use the DNA from the hamburger and implant it into a cow's egg. You have to simply take that DNA and bring it to life. You know give it homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. When you have accomplished that then we can have an intelligent discussion about DNA and life. Until then your fancy biological terms are simply anti-theist argle bargle."
What an absurd way to begin your next paragraph. Do you imagine me as some sort of mystic, or more laughably a replica of your imagined god? I'm afraid we won't be able to have a discussion on DNA and life until you let go of these grossly inaccurate assumptions of what should be able to be done, rather than what can be done. Fancy biological terms eh? I do not apologize for the correct definitions, classifications, inner workings, or any other 'maybe hard to learn' concepts that you cannot grasp and therefore dismiss as fancy. Your ignorance on the subject is no excuse or no first class ticket to treat science as a whipping boy.
"Oh by the way what I describe as a rock is simply an inanimate object of indeterminate size you know, what DNA is without life. But I suspected you knew that to begin with."
Well then, you chose the wrong type of inanimate object to use as an analogy. A rock is not an organic molecule, a DNA molecule is an organic molecule. You see the difference. Your analogy was crippled the moment you mentioned a rock. That is why I called it one of your factual errors. Should I educate you on inorganic and organic molecules before we proceed?
Part 2:
"Having had to run away before my complete thought was ready for publication I was wondering if anyone else noticed that Jonathan didn't say what life was but rather described what life does."
Oh, wow. you. caught. me. The simple explanation to why I didn't describe what life WAS but rather IS is because that no one knows what life IS. If you think you have the explanation then go ahead and submit your theory to a review of your peers, but remember you need to have substantial evidence to back up your claim. That is why I did'nt hit on it, it was intellectual honesty on my part. However, you seem to think I was purposefully dodging it and no amount of me showing you that I wasn't will change your so mind, so that's that and I'll move on.
"To use a hackneyed expression; Jonathan said that "IT rolls down the road". Wonderful but what is IT? Is IT a car? Is IT a truck? Is IT a tractor? Is IT a go kart? Or is IT a bowling ball? We have no way of knowing other than IT rolls down the road."
Alright, so first thing. What is this 'it' you are referring to? The way you're mentioning it makes is extremely vague, so before I can attempt to confront your statement I need to know what 'it' is.
"Homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction does not define life rather it gives a rather pathetic description of what one could expect (assume) a living being might do."
Did you fail to read my response on life? Did you utterly neglect a key word that I used over and over, and one that I did not use at all? Let me make it painfully clear; characteristic is not equal to definition. Can you grasp that concept? Do not twist words in order to puff your argument up sir.
"Also interesting what is left out of Jonathan's list of life. Anyone notice? It is death. Living things do what non living things can not do and that is die. If life is more than a bunch of amino acids bumping into each other can there be any greater proof than death? In death you find the same chemicals in exactly the same order as you would find in the living but they are not active, or animated. They just kind of sit there as the formerly living objects break down into their constituent parts."
Really Joe? I forgot to mention death? Well seeing as death is the opposite of life it would behoove me not to mention it as one of the characteristics. For the word death to one of the characteristics of life would make it a contradictory statement; it would be implied that life is death, which is factually incorrect. Please don't assign the 7 characteristics of life as my list, it was compiled and studied by greater scientists than me and they should have the credit for it. You also clearly demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge on what happens during death. Listen, before you continue on your tirad of what you think is correct EDUCATE yourself first. You cannot assume or guess what you think is right because what you assume and think is right is outstandingly incorrect. Pick up a book, take some courses and then get back to me OR cease the claims completely. Your choice, but I assume that no matter what your conviction in your faith and beliefs that science is utterly wrong will prevent you from learning facts instead of fallacies.
Two major problems now are the lack of understanding of functionality of vast swaths of DNA itself and the suggestion that numerous pairs of DNA are either disconnected or deactivated, deliberately? The receptors are there but no connection? The human is far too complex to just be an animal existing on this planet without a soul or higher purpose and our 'design' indicates this. Sadly, what is intuitive to know is not common knowledge until science verifies it. (real conservative)
"EDUCATE yourself first" No thanks Jonathan I prefer to think and experiment for my self. Back when I was busy collecting degrees I realized that I wasn't being educated I was being indoctrinated. I have been much happier and have made much more progress since I stopped taking guys with an alphabet soup after their names seriously. Time and time and time again I have seen the 'educated' proven to be fools when their pet theory was washed away by the next guy with an agenda and an axe to grind.
"The simple explanation to why I didn't describe what life WAS but rather IS is because that no one knows what life IS."
Hum when I said the same thing using the expression 'magic elixir' Jonathan got all bent out of shape.
Well if nothing else Jonathan and I can agree that no one knows what LIFE actually is. Now my suggestion is that we do some further research. My thought is that since a freshly killed animal has all the right chemicals in all the right order, LIFE must be more than a chemical reaction. If it is more than a chemical reaction is it possible that there is something beyond the purely physical that is the source of life? Is that something beyond the purely physical somehow related to the big bang? Is that something beyond the physical the reason the Earth is so ideally suited for the sustaining of life?
Now I happen to believe that what I just laid out is more the truth than the originless mystical prebiotic soup in the primeval swamp. I didn't reach that conclusion by applying what had been drilled into me from a very early age. What I had been taught limited my thoughts and choices and so I had to 'step beyond'. I had to take a leap in understanding that all that I had been taught was limiting me not freeing me. But then again should I have been surprised? I have spent enough time in university talking to enough professors to know that NONE of them are near the authority they think they are. Oh I know they have spent far more years studying the sex life of a tse tse fly than I ever have but at the end of the day they are just as bound by their bigotries as are we all. They don't want to have a God so they eliminate Him. They dress their rejection up in fancy language but, as a friend used to say, "If you shave a porcupine you end up with a little skinny rat". Or as I said the other night it boils down to I don't want to believe therefore it can not be. Which is pretty much the attitude of the 'scientists' who insisted the sun revolved around the earth when they were presented with an alternate theory.
So how about it Jonathan shall we do some further research? Or would you rather be further indoctrinated?
Maybe its the old engineer in me but I would rather get my hands dirty researching and experimenting than reading some book by some guy that I have no real way of knowing anything about. I would rather build a hovercraft than read about the intriguing idea or an air cushioned vehicle in someone's science paper. At least when I get the thing to work I will have a much more thorough understanding of how it works. Ya game there Jonathan?
Part 1:
"The simple explanation to why I didn't describe what life WAS but rather IS is because that no one knows what life IS."
Hum when I said the same thing using the expression 'magic elixir' Jonathan got all bent out of shape.
Well if nothing else Jonathan and I can agree that no one knows what LIFE actually is. Now my suggestion is that we do some further research. My thought is that since a freshly killed animal has all the right chemicals in all the right order, LIFE must be more than a chemical reaction. If it is more than a chemical reaction is it possible that there is something beyond the purely physical that is the source of life? Is that something beyond the purely physical somehow related to the big bang? Is that something beyond the physical the reason the Earth is so ideally suited for the sustaining of life?
Now I happen to believe that what I just laid out is more the truth than the originless mystical prebiotic soup in the primeval swamp. I didn't reach that conclusion by applying what had been drilled into me from a very early age. What I had been taught limited my thoughts and choices and so I had to 'step beyond'. I had to take a leap in understanding that all that I had been taught was limiting me not freeing me.
Part 2
I have spent enough time in university talking to enough professors to know that NONE of them are near the authority they think they are or want us to think they are. Oh I know they have spent far more years studying the sex life of a tse tse fly than I ever have but at the end of the day they are just as bound by their bigotries as are we all. They don't want to have a God so they eliminate Him. They dress their rejection up in fancy language but, as a friend used to say, "If you shave a porcupine you end up with a little skinny rat". Or as I said the other night it boils down to I don't want to believe therefore it can not be. Which is pretty much the attitude of the 'scientists' who insisted the sun revolved around the earth when they were presented with an alternate theory.
So how about it Jonathan shall we do some further hands on research? Or would you rather be further indoctrinated?
Maybe its the old engineer in me but I would rather get my hands dirty researching and experimenting than reading some book by some guy that I have no real way of knowing anything about. I would rather build a hovercraft than read about the intriguing idea or an air cushioned vehicle in someone's science paper. At least when I get the thing to work I will have a much more thorough understanding of how it works. Ya game to get your hands dirty Jonathan?
Part 1:
"Hum when I said the same thing using the expression 'magic elixir' Jonathan got all bent out of shape."
Well to put it short, no you didn't say the same thing. You see I stated that I don't know what life is, I do know the characteristics, while you used the expression 'magic elixir' implying that it is out of the reach of our knowledge to ever understand it. Our two statements are not the same.
"My thought is that since a freshly killed animal has all the right chemicals in all the right order, LIFE must be more than a chemical reaction."
Your premise that a "freshly killed animal has all the right chemicals in all the right order" is factually incorrect. In death the chemicals responsible for the 7 characteristics of life are no longer produced, rather the cells begin to go through apoptosis (cell death). The gut flora controlled by the living organism through chemicals begin to get out of control and these, with cell death, begins the breakdown of the organism. These chemicals are not the same as those chemicals used to synthesize proteins or any other cellular functions that are present when the organism is alive. Thus your conclusion that LIFE must be more than a chemical reaction does not follow.
"If it is more than a chemical reaction is it possible that there is something beyond the purely physical that is the source of life? Is that something beyond the purely physical somehow related to the big bang? Is that something beyond the physical the reason the Earth is so ideally suited for the sustaining of life?"
These are philosophical questions rather than scientific ones and they should be treated as such.
"Now I happen to believe that what I just laid out is more the truth than the originless mystical prebiotic soup in the primeval swamp."
Because this is what you believe, an opinion, it should be treated as such and not as what is true or correct as you seem to be claiming.
"I didn't reach that conclusion by applying what had been drilled into me from a very early age. What I had been taught limited my thoughts and choices and so I had to 'step beyond'. I had to take a leap in understanding that all that I had been taught was limiting me not freeing me. But then again should I have been surprised? I have spent enough time in university talking to enough professors to know that NONE of them are near the authority they think they are."
How do you know that they are not the authority they claim? Do you know more than them, and if you do what universities did you attend because that could be more of a problem with those universities selecting rather poor instructors.
Part 2:
"They don't want to have a God so they eliminate Him. They dress their rejection up in fancy language but, as a friend used to say, "If you shave a porcupine you end up with a little skinny rat". Or as I said the other night it boils down to I don't want to believe therefore it can not be. Which is pretty much the attitude of the 'scientists' who insisted the sun revolved around the earth when they were presented with an alternate theory."
I don't believe in god and I don't want to eliminate him. Since I don't believe in him there is no reason for me to eliminate a fictional character; it would like me wanting to eliminate the easter bunny. You have to have evidence to support your conclusion that they dress their rejection with fancy language, otherwise it is a broad assertion with no factual basis. I understand the meaning of the porcupin/rat, but if you did shave a porcupine you would still have a porcupine. Simply shaving it does not make it a rat. C
Well to defend the scientists who supported geocentrism, they were going off what they had observed around them. Geocentrism was later replaced with heliocentrism so I don't see how this attitude prevented anything from ever happening or progressing.
"So how about it Jonathan shall we do some further research? Or would you rather be further indoctrinated?"
How do suggest we do further research? Is it by reading up on them, or by our own physical experimentations? Either way these are still forms of indoctrination. In order for you to do your experiments you will need prior knowledge to successfully do your experiment, which would require indocrination on the subject. Everyone is indoctrinated in some form or another, it is not a bad thing. To answer your question though, I would like to be further indoctrinated. I say this because I can trust the peer review system in that other scientists will be performing and critically analyzing the data and conclusion of papers. If the papers are faulty, or the experiment is found to be faulty it is rejected. Or would you rather me take your belief in creation as the final word? Are you in fact trying to indoctrinate me?
"Maybe its the old engineer in me but I would rather get my hands dirty researching and experimenting than reading some book by some guy that I have no real way of knowing anything about. I would rather build a hovercraft than read about the intriguing idea or an air cushioned vehicle in someone's science paper. At least when I get the thing to work I will have a much more thorough understanding of how it works."
Good for you Joe, you go get your hands dirty, but I do not have the funds, equipment, or labs to perform the experiments that you require. If you have no real way of knowing anything about the authors of a book then why do you trust in the bible, and its numerous authors? Could you conceive of a hoover craft if it wasn't already researched and put on to paper on how to build one for yourself? If you can then could you tell me why you havn't figured out room temperature super conductors?
"Ya game there Jonathan?"
I hope you see the irony in you asking me this question. You want me to not be any more indoctrinated in one hand and yet you want me to trust YOU on your findings of 'some' research that you would undoubtedly have to post on the internet in the form of words in the other hand. You have some serious contradictions up there before I'm game Joe.
So at death the chemicals stop interacting. Hmmm. Very interesting. Now why would that be? Now why wouldn't the 'dead' chemicals spontaneously start interacting again? After all isn't that how the original DNA spontaneously became a living being? Unless of course there is some sort of 'magic elixir' that causes said chemicals to interact.
What nonsense you spout when you say "I'm not trying to eliminate God". Of course you are trying to eliminate God. If not you wouldn't be on this site arguing Richard and myself!
BTW I never said I wanted to indoctrinate you. I want you to do your own exploration, experimentation etc. As you progress you can update me. I'll just shut up and wait.
Now if you are game you can start by asking the God that Richard and I both talk about to show you that He exists. That is all the experimentation required. Well that and time. Take a note book and keep a diary like any other good scientist. Get back to me in a couple of years.
Have a nice life and God Bless!
Joe, I see now that you're just going to take any rebuttal I say and wiggle and squirm to twist into something that may help you. No, I will not continue this discourse with you, I'd rather dip my hand in a fryer. I'm not trying to eliminate god, BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE EXISTS OR HAS EVER EXISTED. Why would I want to eliminate the eastern bunny?
In summary, I will not ask that he exists (whatever that means). I will not take a diary like other scientists (I'm pretty sure that's inaccurate as well). I will not get back to you in a couple of years because I imagine that if I did you would still be here preaching the same nonsense that you are preaching now.
As for Mr.Ball, I think I'm done with this site. You have the intellectual honesty of a prison inmate. If it loos like something doesn't fit what you believe DO NOT DISMISS IT BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST SOMETHING ELSE YOU BELIEVE. This is what you do day in and day out and if you continue with it you'll eventually end up like Joe. Good look with your blog.
Well Jonathan I see you are not near the scientist you first claimed to be. Pity really. It shows your lack of intellectual honesty and definitely a closed mindedness that is most unbecoming. It is most shown by your refusal to accept evidence as evidence. I guess you wouldn't make a good CSI worker but then again they actually practice science not just read about it in a college text book.
In the mean time I hope you have a nice life and sometime in the future when the evidence overwhelms you and you confess that indeed there is a God feel free to come back and let us know. We promise not to gloat because we've been down that road too.
God Bless!
Post a Comment