Does DNA prove intelligent design?

[camanintx]

First question - The following is a statement that summarizes the current view.
"One of the most important results of twentieth-century physics has been the gradual realization that there exist invariant properties of the natural world and its elementary components which render the gross size and structure of virtually all its constituents quite inevitable. The size of stars and planets, and even people, are neither random nor the result of any Darwinian selection process from a myriad possibilities. These and other gross features of the Universe are the consequence of necessity; they are the manifestations of the possible equilibrium states between competing forces of attraction and repulsion. The intrinsic strengths of these controlling forces of Nature are determined by a mysterious collection of pure numbers that we call constants of Nature. (John D. Borrow & Frank J. Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," p.5 italics in text)

If the properties that make life possible in this universe are invariant and the consequence of necessity, then they couldn't be any different, could they?

 

[Magic Man]

Your judgmental opinion without having read the book is an obvious indication of prejudice. There is no possibility of an objective conversation where prejudice rules, as in your case, so this is my last post to you.

Addio [Good bye in Italian]

Wow. If you can't even talk to painted wolf, you might as well just leave this forum. She is consistently one of the most reasonable and calm members around here. You're going to have a hard time around here if you think she has an attitude problem.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Keep telling yourself that. I know scientists who'd say otherwise.

In the science community, biologisit especially, evolution is as well accepted as gravity.

 

[Nepenthe]

In the science community, biologisit especially, evolution is as well accepted as gravity.

Indeed. And I hate to sound like a broken record, but evolution is better understood and more substantiated than gravity.

Wow. If you can't even talk to painted wolf, you might as well just leave this forum. She is consistently one of the most reasonable and calm members around here. You're going to have a hard time around here if you think she has an attitude problem.

I have a sneaking suspicion that it's more an inability and/or unwillingness to understand rather than an attitude problem. But I'm a bit cynical so take that as you will....

 

[painted wolf]

Your judgmental opinion without having read the book is an obvious indication of prejudice. There is no possibility of an objective conversation where prejudice rules, as in your case, so this is my last post to you.

Perhaps you are unaware that major discoveries in science are not done in pop-sci books, but in peer reviewed journals.
Perhaps you are also unaware that if they had indeed "mathematically proven" their idea, they would have won the Nobel Prize in physics... it would the ultimate ToE (theory of everything).

Neither seems to have happened... thus one can only conclude that it is an interesting idea, and may have some merit but ultimately it is a mental puzzle like string "theory" or the multiverse.

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

If the properties that make life possible in this universe are invariant and the consequence of necessity, then they couldn't be any different, could they?

That's correct. That's what scientists have concluded.

 

[sandor606]

Perhaps you are unaware that major discoveries in science are not done in pop-sci books, but in peer reviewed journals.
Perhaps you are also unaware that if they had indeed "mathematically proven" their idea, they would have won the Nobel Prize in physics... it would the ultimate ToE (theory of everything).

Neither seems to have happened... thus one can only conclude that it is an interesting idea, and may have some merit but ultimately it is a mental puzzle like string "theory" or the multiverse.

wa:do

"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" is full of math that supports the claim. Your calling it a pop-sci book without having read/studied it shows the infinite depth of your prejudice. Where prejudice rules, a rational discussion is impossible.

 

[knockknock]

I have faith in Creator... but I also think that Creationism and ID are pseudoscientific attempts to shoe horn religion into science. They rely to heavily on lies, distortions and propaganda to be trustworthy... they don't actually produce any science.

Purpose is not a scientific question and while I seek purpose in my life personally, I don't ascribe purpose to the universe at large. I do not think that humanity is the ultimate expression of creation but rather everything in creation is equal.

I don't separate Creator and the creation... but I also don't see "intelligence" in the process beyond the wisdom to let the process happen as it will. I do not think we were 'designed' beyond the constraints of natural selection. Then again, I don't separate natural selection and Creator.

As a scientist, I can not inject my faith into my work... I can not test or experiment on Creator and so Creator must remain outside science.
I don't think Creator is cruel or sneaky and so I don't think that Creator would lie to us by planting evidence that isn't true. The evidence supports evolution.

wa:do

Thank you painted wolf. I appreciate your honesty and views

 

[Alceste]

"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" is full of math that supports the claim. Your calling it a pop-sci book without having read/studied it shows the infinite depth of your prejudice. Where prejudice rules, a rational discussion is impossible.

Just wondering, is this a book you had to study to obtain your "undergraduate degree in biology"?

I am still trying to ascertain whether the creationists have started handing out degrees in biology, or whether you just made that up.

 

[sandor606]

Sandor, have you ever read a Choose Your Own Adventure book? Those are the ones where after each story segment there are three or four choices about what you want the protagonist to do. The ending is different depending on which choices you make. Some choices lead to death and some to success.

Your whole argument amounts to a kid arriving at one of the many possible endings and insisting there are no other stories, no other endings, no other possible events that could have occurred, that the one storyline he happened to follow - and only that story - was exactly the story the author intended to be read.

Me, I stuck a finger in each of the choice pages I had passed to make sure I didn't miss any, so I can very easily see that you are wrong.

May I ask where you got your "undergraduate degree in biology"? Was it at a religious university? I don't want to get too personal, but I am very curious to know how someone who doesn't believe that evolution, physics and chemistry can be empirically studied without a supernatural explanation for everything could acquire one of these.

I posted what scientists claim and quoted the pertinent material. Your subjective opinion of me and where I got my undergraduate degree is not germaine to the discussion. What is germaine is the info provided on the subject under discussion. I have yet to read anything by anyone that contradicts/debunks WITH SCIENTIFIC PROOF the info I posted. All I have read have been subjective denials. That's not science.
One can study the natural sciences without a supernatural explanation, e.g., Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" (which I have read and disagree with). However, in view of the existence of other info, I chose to also study the books that posit the possibility of a Designer and they made much more sense. My favorite authors are Michael Denton (quoted), Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box), Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution), Percival Davies & Dean H. Kanyon (Of Pandas and People), to name a few.

What books have you studied that support your view and would you quote from them?

 

[camanintx]

That's correct. That's what scientists have concluded.

So exactly how does this support intelligent design as you claimed in Post #99? Just because puddle perfectly matches the shape of it's hole doesn't mean that the hole was designed for the puddle.

 

[painted wolf]

"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" is full of math that supports the claim. Your calling it a pop-sci book without having read/studied it shows the infinite depth of your prejudice. Where prejudice rules, a rational discussion is impossible.

Check Amazon... it's not a text book... that means its a work of "popular" science... pop-sci... not that there is anything inherently wrong with pop-sci... I love to read it myself. However I realize it's limitiations, and that is the fact that it isn't a work of hard science.

Your inability to realize the difference between a book of hard science and a book of popular science is disheartening.

but please do give us an example of the math that proves their case.

One would think that with this work done in the 1980's it would be standard practice in physics... certainly Nobel worthy.

I'm not prejudiced... skeptical yes... but prejudiced is jumping the shark. None of my physicist friends have ever mentioned the subject except in the light of "funny idea" and head shaking.

Plus... just to be fair here... you have no way of knowing if I have or have not read this book.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I am still trying to ascertain whether the creationists have started handing out degrees in biology, or whether you just made that up.

Bob Jones...

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

One can study the natural sciences without a supernatural explanation, e.g., Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" (which I have read and disagree with). However, in view of the existence of other info, I chose to also study the books that posit the possibility of a Designer and they made much more sense. My favorite authors are Michael Denton (quoted), Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box), Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution), Percival Davies & Dean H. Kanyon (Of Pandas and People), to name a few.

What books have you studied that support your view and would you quote from them?

Do you read any hard science?
It seems to me all your sources are popular books, not primary sources or hard science texts.

Perhaps this explains your confusion?

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

Just wondering, is this a book you had to study to obtain your "undergraduate degree in biology"?

Gah, I hope not! Tipler and Barrow's book is pop science speculation at it's finest. It's a complicated jumble of mathematics that the authors use to support the existence of a creator. Tipler is also responsible for The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead, which pretty much explains his position. Shermer's Why People believe Weird Things has a decent chapter refuting Tipler and Barrow.

I am still trying to ascertain whether the creationists have started handing out degrees in biology, or whether you just made that up.

See, you ask the question that needs to be asked and I've been holding my tongue....

 

[Alceste]

I posted what scientists claim and quoted the pertinent material. Your subjective opinion of me and where I got my undergraduate degree is not germaine to the discussion.

It was just idle curiosity. I am guessing that either you don't have a biology degree, or you have a degree from a university that hands out degrees to people who can quote notoriously inaccurate and misleading creationist textbooks like "Of Pandas and People". I didn't know such universities existed.

What is germaine is the info provided on the subject under discussion. I have yet to read anything by anyone that contradicts/debunks WITH SCIENTIFIC PROOF the info I posted.

See, that's why it seems likely you don't actually have a degree in any scientific field, let alone biology. Science doesn't prove things. Even I know that, and I have a degree in jack squat.

One can study the natural sciences without a supernatural explanation, e.g., Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" (which I have read and disagree with). However, in view of the existence of other info, I chose to also study the books that posit the possibility of a Designer and they made much more sense. My favorite authors are Michael Denton (quoted), Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box), Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution), Percival Davies & Dean H. Kanyon (Of Pandas and People), to name a few.

I can't help noticing that, apart from the notoriously inaccurate and misleading creationist grade school biology text book, you have ONLY cited popular science (pop-sci) writers. Chalk that up as another thing that causes me to doubt you have ever studied biology at university level.

What books have you studied that support your view and would you quote from them?

Aw, jeez, do you really want to get into a book reading ******* contest? Really? With a woman who has read over a hundred books a year for 30 years, on every topic under the sun? Would I quote from one of them? Why would I need to? I make my own thoughts. Besides, painted wolf is an actual biology student in a real university studying for a real biology degree, so I will defer to her superior understanding of the subject. As should you.

 

[painted wolf]

Thank you painted wolf. I appreciate your honesty and views

Thank you. I love to answer honest questions... at least as well as I am able to.

wa:do

 

[sandor606]

Check Amazon... it's not a text book... that means its a work of "popular" science... pop-sci... not that there is anything inherently wrong with pop-sci... I love to read it myself. However I realize it's limitiations, and that is the fact that it isn't a work of hard science.

Your inability to realize the difference between a book of hard science and a book of popular science is disheartening.

but please do give us an example of the math that proves their case.

One would think that with this work done in the 1980's it would be standard practice in physics... certainly Nobel worthy.

I'm not prejudiced... skeptical yes... but prejudiced is jumping the shark. None of my physicist friends have ever mentioned the subject except in the light of "funny idea" and head shaking.

Plus... just to be fair here... you have no way of knowing if I have or have not read this book.

wa:do

If you think so little of a 706-page book chuck full of math just because it's not a text book then please, by all means, share with us the one book that is a text book and offers scientific proof that debunks what I offered. So far you have offered absolutely nothing in the way of scientific proof that contradics what I have posted except unsubstantiated subjective opinions which are infinitely less convincing than the opinions of the scientists I quoted.

 

[camanintx]

If you think so little of a 706-page book chuck full of math just because it's not a text book then please, by all means, share with us the one book that is a text book and offers scientific proof that debunks what I offered. So far you have offered absolutely nothing in the way of scientific proof that contradics what I have posted except unsubstantiated subjective opinions which are infinitely less convincing than the opinions of the scientists I quoted.

Since even the book you referenced admits that universal properties couldn't have been any different, isn't it contradicting itself?

 

[Alceste]

If you think so little of a 706-page book chuck full of math just because it's not a text book then please, by all means, share with us the one book that is a text book and offers scientific proof that debunks what I offered. So far you have offered absolutely nothing in the way of scientific proof that contradics what I have posted except unsubstantiated subjective opinions which are infinitely less convincing than the opinions of the scientists I quoted.

I just wrote a 709 page book containing nothing but endless strings of numbers - no words at all - that says your 706 page book is wrong.