I understand what you mean. Too many people in the scientific community make assumptions based on what we know now, not what we could possibly know in the future. In 100 years from now humans will have made discoveries and created technology that would make Hawkings head explode. If someone described them to him now, based only on what we know, it would seem completely unrealistic. I dont think he would ever flat out say there is no creator, but then again I wouldnt have believed he doesnt see any scenario where aliens discover us and dont wipe us out/harvest us (if thats the case).
...how in the hell can ANYONE go against Steven Hawkings? ...he has been scrutinized longer than most people on these boards have been alive, and I'm sure he is aware of the controversy he is creating with his new book....IMO, he took a clever approach. He states in the "M-Theory"that, "A God is unnecessary"....science explains nature. IMO, If you don't believe this, you've been brainwashed with religion, and religion stunts the mind, like a virus...it just gets in the fucking way....and you'll never believe it....you've got that virus. We need to be focused on the stars if we want to continue the human species, not looking down to our feet...so, everyone just drop the fucking bible, and listen to the smartest man in the world. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUyJfzJB-kA[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb7LCau_Z_Y&feature=grec_index[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQvnQD9_l1c&feature=related[/ame]
First of all, it has not been demonstrated yet in a laboratory, but the emergence of DNA is not against any scientific laws that we know of. It is possible simply through thermodynamics. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc[/ame] It is literally only a matter of time until we observe this in the lab. "Was It the Origin of Life"? Biologists Create Self-replicating RNA Molecule Also you are arguing from incredulity; "We/I can't think of a way of how this works... therefore God did it!" And no, DNA is not a language. It isn't symbolic or arbitrary. It might be a useful analogy for putting DNA into perspective (for 6 year olds), but at some point all analogies fail due to inaccuracy. Arguing against/for a God, or not believing/believing in one, only because of personal emotions such as what you described does not change the existence or non-existence of that God. I, and I'm willing to bet DirtySix as well, realize this and this is why we are asking for logical proof or evidence, rather than personal testimony. The difference between what you and High24x7x365 said is that all of this future knowledge will be consistent with mathematics. It will all still be logical. Because of this, Hawking's head will not explode, but his load probably would.
I don't know if god exists, nor do I give a fuck But I still give more credibility to Stephen Hawkings than judeochristian religions (and other derived methods of population control)
Oh now that I think of it, Maybe that we want to believe in a god that ressembles us because we want to comfort ourselves thinking that the human species is The Mostest Superiorest Intelligent Being (Cause you know, god made us in his image, duh!) and If we learned that everything is officially the result of random physics and chemistry, some people would be too mindfucked to accept that humans aren't a privileged life form in the universe, and that intelligence/knowledge is meaningless
I'm not saying we will never be able to create DNA in a cell, that's not the problem at all.. DNA by definition is an encoded language. The specific sequence of the DNA molecules holds the information of what order to line up amino acids, where in the cell to send the amino acid link, what 3 dimensional shape to fold the chain into to form a protein, then where to send the protein in the cell and what specific job to perform. All of this non physical information is held within the solely the specific sequencing of the molecules and are decoded by the cell as instructions. Where did this information come from?
^^^ Is this guy trolling? He seems to resort to ad hominems when he has nothing to say to back up his opposing claims..
We can't get rid of him. Apparently he's only making his case on a weed forum instead of where it would really matter.
First of all the DNA won't be "created". It would be observed. By mimicking the natural environment 3.5 bya, and placing what chemicals were likely to have formed, and which ones we know have formed into a test tube, without any further adjustments other than more environmental mimickry, is not creation. It is observation of natural phenomena at work. Instructions does not mean language. Can the "language" of DNA ask questions? Answer questions? Or do any of the fancy things that language does other than give directions? No. Instructions arise from chemistry. Actually, these "instructions" are just sequences of cause and effect due to the laws of chemistry and physics. They are mindless. The fact which I already presented, that DNA is not arbitrary, destroys the language analogy. Now I love TalkOrigins.org, not sure about you. But I'm going to provide a link which containts a rebuttal to the exact claim you are making. CB180: DNA as language
You seem to be missing the point, whether you call in a language or a code, it is still containing non physical information (instructions) held of a physical median. It holds instructions for what order to line up certain amino acids, where to send the amino acid chain, what 3 dimensional shape to fold the amino acid chain into a protein, where in the cell to send the protein and what specific task for it to perform. All of this is determined by the coding on the original DNA strand. Now it doesn't matter what physical median you display this information by, whether it's by the DNA molecules themselves or the A T C G coding displayed on a computer screen, the information is still the same. The molecules are simply shapes used as a physical median to convey a non physical message of information. This is technically by definition an encoded language.. No it doesn't ask questions but it is still used to convey information.
You describe DNA as a perfect expression of coding that 'creates' humans. Unfortunately 98% of DNA in the human genome doesn't encode any proteins at all. We know that a small percentage of this does have other purposes, but most of what's 'written' in DNA is useless. You also imply that the sequences that creates creatures such as humans are unchanging and that they're predetermined, but old seqeunces are lost and new ones gained on a regular basis. Also, we are not as we were originally 'written' in DNA, ie, there is no code for modern man in ancient DNA as he is now. Much of what we are is the result of interactions/infection between us and viruses and bacteria. Our blood, stomach, lymph, etc., is full of creatures in their own right who use us as a host. We wouldn't process food or oxygen in the same way without them and our blood wouldn't be able to cope with infections. We are now a composite creature, not the result of a design being written into DNA. Think of this, "..Scientists estimate that 90 percent of the cells contained in the human body belong to nonhuman organisms.." These are not mere hangers-on who lurk in our guts, but integral parts of our biology that we could not survive without. Only a limited part of who and what we are is down to our own DNA. MelT
The Dna holds all the blueprints to create our physical body. There is no waste or 'junk dna', the more we research it the more we find it actually serves purpose. To say just because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean it has no use at all..http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/ And no, I imply that specific sequencing of the DNA molecules result in a specific chain of amino acids which is later folded into a 3 dimensional form to transform into a protein which is then set out to perform specific tasks, all that is determined by the specific sequencing of the molecules. And all of that is beside the matter of fact, DNA still with holds non physical information and is by definition an encoded language. Can you show any natural processes which creates specified information?
As I said too, some of it is being shown to be of use, but when 98% is of no use whatsoever, even if we found out that 50% of that was of use it would still mean that a major part of the structure of DNA is of no use - not even counting the faulty and mutated sequences we all carry. Junk is still junk, whether it's 1% or 98%, it shows that whilst DNA may contain structure, it also contains nonsense. If god made it he did it on a bad hair day... Which wasn't present in the initial DNA, it evolved into it. You seem to want to miss out whole stages of development and imply that DNA arrived in total and complete. It evolved to do what it does, it didn't start out that way. Eyes for example wren't written into the DNA of proto-cells, they evolved. Humans as they are now aren't written into ancient DNA. Yes, easily. The formation of crystals. The ordering of complex sugars into chains due to electro-static action in water (a necessary pre-cursor of life). Establishing chirality of sugars due to X-rays and sunlight (necessary for us to be what we are now). These ordering processes create complexity where there previously was none, they create order out of randomness, and they contain both information about their future and past states, and of the matter around them. DNA isn't 'specified information' a piece of coding that creates a fixed being. DNA contains instructions for variation and adaptation, not fixed beings. DNA also isn't 'non-physical' information but actual. It contains 'information' and simple triggers in exactly the way that many other systems do, by virtue of chemical and electro-magnetic interaction. I notice that you fail to address the idea that we're symbiotic beings who wouldn't look like we do now, wouldn't be able to eat or possibly even survive diseases without the DNA of other creatures that's within our own cells. If we are complete human beings, created solely from our own DNA and an ancient blueprint , then why could we not survive without this foreign DNA? Why did god get it wrong? MelT I'm intrigued - what do you think we looked like before we evolved into modern humans, before we became hominins?
The Dover case was a landmark action which showed how little ID and creationism has ever come up with to counter evolution. Long story short, the creationists said that their research was being ignored and not taught in schools. They were asked to show exactly what that research was, but they came up with nothing and the case collapsed. Irreducible complexity in the Dover trial While testifying at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[85] In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity:[85] "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73) "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74) "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75) "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." (Page 76) "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))." (Page 78) "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)). MelT
i thought the show was interesting. im also that glad that if i cant comprehend something right away, i dont instantly play the god trump card.
...sounds like you might have good common sense. ...view this video, you'll like. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF3yb1g30Io]Absolute certainty - YouTube[/ame]
Religion is a coping mechanism. Some people hit a joint, some people jog, and some thump a bible. To each his own.