Intelligent design / creationism

[Drakon1323]

JP, you do make some good points, but i must say that it looks like (in my opinion) youre going about it the wrong way. First of all, with all due respect, the way you post sounds almost as if you were a nun teaching a 4th grade class. Wether the reactions are conscious or sub conscious, they are bound to be more negative than if you presented yourself with a less authoritative tone. The majority of members here are grown, educated adults.
Second, keep in mind that this is a scientific forum that is tollerant and accepting of theological views and beleifs, this is not a religious forum incorporating science. I would tend to say that you cannot present an idea and then shift the burden of proof elsewhere. Burden of proof , especially here, is yours and yours alone. If others help you in that effort, all the better, that helps fuel a healthy discusssion. Otherwise, forcing it toward others will instigate resentment, and therefore, limit discussion.
On the topic of inferrence, it doesnt work, its about as good here as a gut feeling. Bringing in the judicial system doesnt really help because again, they use inferrence like a gut feeling to steer toward the right place to find evidence, plus the judicial system is rediculously flawed to start with which is increasingly exagurated by your reference to television which is almost gauranteed to be highly inaccurate and rarely resembles truth.
Furthermore, it would benefit you greatly if you start phrasing things that are opinions or faiths more as your opinion (like: 'i think it could be' as opposed to 'it is' or 'it must be' ). you will get a little less confrontation and a little more discussion of how or why they dont agree (or even agree)

Dont get me wrong, im not trying to criticize or discourage you in any way, i just wanted to give u a little more insight to what youre up against and where you might be steering off course.
BTW, im glad to see youre following maddog's advice on structure

[Drakon1323]

On the subject of language, could not something be said for miseducation or even a lack of it ?
I remember when the 't' was silent in the word 'often'. (I never really thought it should be there but it kinda went in the opposite direction of my choice). Now im one of the only ones that pronounces it w/o the 't'
ive noticed that with many words, theyre pronounced differently on an increasing level which appears like its due to education or efforts of extreme slang(also common).

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

There are some similarities but language did not "evolve" in the Darwinian sense, such as mutation and survival of the fittest. Languages develop over time as people create more uses for words and structures. The main thing is language is learned. The differences between languages are mainly due to human memory. In a generation, it's possible to forget how to pronounce something or what it used to mean. But when it's written, it can be stored and relearned, revived, as needed. We still study ancient Greek (I did) and Latin for some reason beyond my reasoning.

I would think that language as with any skill or trade should be passed on for the sake of knowledge and or reference. What if we still spoke ancient languages fluently? We'd have a better understanding of our history. We might even be able to better understand what the bible is, factual or fictitous stories

[Fishteacher73]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

We still study ancient Greek (I did) and Latin for some reason beyond my reasoning.

I believe Drakon just answered that.

[GAHD]

On the aspect of DNA, there's a post I made in another thread that applies:

In an effort to keep this on topic, here's an informative article that helps to explain why we don't see so many six armed monsters.
"Early guesses about the nature of the [genetic] code often started from an assumption that it would maximize information density...The concern with efficiency turned out to be misplaced...The concept that has replaced efficiency...is error-*tolerance..."
- http://www.americanscientist.org/tem.../assetid/37228

I'm still mulling over the specifics, but it holds true to some ideas I'd been kicking around. I particularly like the qwerty refrance.

The article is entitled 'Ode to the Code'

[pie]

Have you not noticed all the women giving head? Well, in the future, we will be all hermaphrodite's - that is we will be able to reproduce without an opposite sex. - Just like fish, depending on the temperature of the environment.

So a green house effect on earth produces more homosexuals, and little to no reproduction occurs. In this way the earth has a self-governing effect of overpopulation and man-made pollution on earth.

Sharks are still in the ocean, and only know sex and violence, and have evolved to perfection. What a design model for us all.

So next time someone tells you to put your "disney ears on" - You can put your shark ears on instead.

[pgrmdave]

Originally Posted by pie

Have you not noticed all the women giving head? Well, in the future, we will be all hermaphrodite's - that is we will be able to reproduce without an opposite sex. - Just like fish, depending on the temperature of the environment.

So a green house effect on earth produces more homosexuals, and little to no reproduction occurs. In this way the earth has a self-governing effect of overpopulation and man-made pollution on earth.

Sharks are still in the ocean, and only know sex and violence, and have evolved to perfection. What a design model for us all.

So next time someone tells you to put your "disney ears on" - You can put your shark ears on instead.

Do you have any evidence for your claims - human hermaphrodites, green house effect producing homosexuality, perfection = sharks? Please read the FAQ, those claims are definitely strange and radical enough that you should provide some evidence, or proof before you post them.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by maddog

Am I to understand the body of your arguement that "God must have created DNA because it is too complicated for him not to" ??? There are 4 base pairs that make up the sequence {A, T, G, P} (I forgot most of the amino acid names -- excuse me). I am beginning to think you don't know enough about logic.

DNA is not made of amino acids: proteins are. The monomeric building blocks of DNA are nucleotides.

The four deoxyribonucleotides are symbolized by the abbreviations for their nitrogenous bases, those being A, T, G, and C. There's a C, which you left out, and there's no P, which you added.

I guess one might be justified in turning your own statement back on you, as in, "I am beginning to think you don't know enough about biology". :-)

*********************
By the way, did someone here point out how DNA can form naturalistically? All of the anti-IDists seem to believe it could, but I didn't see any of them provide any evidence supporting that position.

By the way #2, DNA is not self-replicating, despite what several people here asserted.

[pmaust]

To everyone who has contributed to this thread, thank you! I am way too busy to be able to participate and I don't have the necessary amount of knowlege anyway. But I am staying up way too late catching up on reading. I've enjoyed the heck out of this plus I am learning and thinking. If you step away from this as I am forced to do and them come back to it, it is wonderful to see the idea exchange that goes on here.

Paul

[Fishteacher73]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

By the way, did someone here point out how DNA can form naturalistically? All of the anti-IDists seem to believe it could, but I didn't see any of them provide any evidence supporting that position.

Complex molecules are thought to have begun abiotic synthesis through their formation upon ionicly carged clays. These parterns would attract specific paterns of molecules, which in turn would attract "negative" layers of silt clay again that would repeat the process. This began an early race for resources, and the most effecient would prevail.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: By the way, did someone here point out how DNA can form naturalistically? All of the anti-IDists seem to believe it could, but I didn't see any of them provide any evidence supporting that position.

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

Complex molecules are thought to have begun abiotic synthesis through their formation upon ionicly carged clays. These parterns would attract specific paterns of molecules, which in turn would attract "negative" layers of silt clay again that would repeat the process. This began an early race for resources, and the most effecient would prevail.

So you can point me to a prebiotically plausible experiment in which that method produced DNA from scratch?