DNA Self Assembly, Abiogenesis and How Science REALLY Works

a reply to: daskakik

No faith needed. Science has given us, all of us, very tangible results.

I find this statement very unreasonable. Science has "proven" and found their "proven" information wrong to many times to count! No need to make scientist and science into a god also.

here is a small example of the errors in science

5 Famous Scientists Dismissed as Morons in Their Time

Yet, there have been brilliant rebels who put their own world-changing ideas on the line, only to end up like Doc Brown in his alternate timeline: humiliated, ridiculed, ignored and/or straight driven to insanity.

www.cracked.com...

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: addygrace

originally posted by: Phantom423

This is how real science is done - it is not the chaotic rhetoric of Creationists who have zip hard evidence to support their claims.

Science is pretty exciting. But how is belittling creationists, because you don't believe in God, exciting to you?

Because they don't believe in science lmao!!!!

None takes a hard look at science and the failing of the methods. It has slowed the learning process!

It was “settled science” when I was a medical student in the 1960’s that duodenal ulcers were caused by excess gastric acid, exacerbated by stress. Treatment then focused on reducing acidity and stress – either by pills, surgery or psychotherapy. I would have failed medical school and would not be standing before you today if, on my final exams, I wrote that ulcers were caused by infection.

Then in the early 1980’s Robin Warren and Barry Marshall of Australia isolated Helicobacter Pylori from patients with ulcer disease and concluded that these bacteria were the cause of duodenal ulcers. They did not have an easy time – after all this was against “settled science.”

As Barry Marshall recounted in his Nobel Prize lecture, his results were not believed, even though he had started successfully treating patients who had suffered with life threatening ulcer disease for years with antibiotics. So, in 1984, frustrated by the lack of acceptance of his discovery, Marshall decided to infect himself with H. Pylori – without discussing his plan with the ethics committee of his hospital. He became severely ill and biopsy showed colonization and classic histological damage to the stomach. He then treated himself successfully with antibiotics.

He still had a decade ahead of unsuccessful research grant applications and rejected manuscripts. Private investors had to fund the clinical trials that finally vindicated his research findings. In 2005, Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their discovery.
And of course, the ulcer story is not unique.

business.financialpost.com...

originally posted by: Char-Lee
I find this statement very unreasonable. Science has "proven" and found their "proven" information wrong to many times to count! No need to make scientist and science into a god also.

Saying science gave us technology (too many things to list), isn't making them into gods.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There aren't a "mass of clues" pointing to intelligent design.

And yet there are plenty of scientists who believe, many have come to believe in recent years as we learn more and more about the true nature of our universe!

What are you talking about?

Handful of loons in science community who can't distinguish between facts and belief??

I believe Dr. Tyson in one of his speeches points that there is small percents of top scientist who believe in God, and he actually urges that they should focus on those people, not regular people when propagating science and scientific methods. (7% of elite scientist)



This video is really eye opener and on the mark.

Any use of non-scientific methods, such as Deepak Chopra's use of quantum physics to propagate his ideas, and he is not quantum physicist, should be labels none-scientific, witch really it is and so called scientist really are not that - scientist.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Handful of loons in science community who can't distinguish between facts and belief??

What a silly thing to say! Take a good trip through research of whom has believed in a god.

I see the results of Science in thousands of different ways all around me every single day. Proof that it works as predicted.

I see the failure of Religion in thousands of different ways all around me every single day. Proof that it's not working as predicted.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: SuperFrog

Handful of loons in science community who can't distinguish between facts and belief??

What a silly thing to say! Take a good trip through research of whom has believed in a god.

I'm still waiting for this evidence for intelligent design. Forget the appeal to authority fallacy and produce the evidence. No one cares about what scientists believe in regards to god. The evidence is all that matters.

Why is it that whenever religious folks are backed into a corner when asked for evidence they usually come back by talking about scientists that happen to be religious or quote mining scientists to show they are religious? None of that is evidence of intelligent design. It is just evidence that even smart people can believe in concepts without evidence. It doesn't mean it is a valid premise though.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: SuperFrog

Handful of loons in science community who can't distinguish between facts and belief??

What a silly thing to say! Take a good trip through research of whom has believed in a god.

Whether a person believes in a god is irrelevant to science. "Belief" implies "faith". Science doesn't function on faith - it functions on facts. Anyone, including scientists, can have their philosophical opinions. But philosophy stops at the door to the lab and fact-finding begins. The two are mutually exclusive.

a reply to: Char-Lee

Ok as a deity believing scientist (not Abrahamic in faith however) .... this is a BS statement. Darwin was a good Christian, yet he postulated one of the earliest theories of evolution. The majority of mankind believes in the possibility of gods .... yet scientists still manage to put forth ideas which upset a small minority of fundamentalists.

Then we look at "creationist science" and almost ALL of the work they do is out of their fields of expertese. For example the attacks on radiometric analysis. Are they by Chemists, Physcists, geologists? Nope, an engineer. Proof that humans are not from earth (for the IDers here) ... geneticists, Biochemits? Nope, an ecologist. Sorry but as a Chemist and Bioinformatics jockey if I waded into Astronomy, I'd be out of my depth and not a subject mater expert. I'd be only slightly more educated in my guesses than the general public (and I grew up with an astronomer in the house).

a reply to: Noinden

Interesting, but why did one biologist that believes in creation ask this question.

How did those protein machines become so well engineered ?’

Similar educations and fields of study yet you both came to different conclusions, are you claiming to be that much smarter than a person with a similar education and career ?

In the end if two people have a similar education in the sciences and one comes to one conclusion and one a different conclusion(creation VS. spontaneous life) , many here will just say, oh they are just loony. But that's really a lie, it boils down to a philosophical difference in world view.
And that is something people who fight against creation don't want to admit to, but it is the reality in the 21 century.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Cite or be damned neighbor. We have had this discussion. "One Biologist" (unidentified by you) would be one Feng-Ling Yang. Your source for this quote is most likely this a Jehovahs Witness site. Hardly a source of unbiased peer reviewed scientific research Indeed the interview talks about her faith, her belief, not actual scientific work she has done to prove her dtheis that "Jehovah did it" . It is all Unverifiable Personal Gnosis (UPG), I've nothing against UPG in spirituality, mine is rife with it, thats sort of the point, you can't verify it. You can verify science.

So grasping at straws more and more neighbor? It sure seems to be.

SO again I shall repeat: A single, source is not a proof or a disproof. You have yet to build a body of evidence in any of your arguments.

Here have a cookie, you seem to be having a bad day.

a reply to: Noinden

Oh indeed look not a single publication on abiogenesis, evoltution, the origins of life. Dr Yang has stuck to her area of expertise, microbiology. Imagine that. A single interview with her church, and suddenly its a smoking gun? Yeah nah.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: daskakik

No faith needed. Science has given us, all of us, very tangible results.

I find this statement very unreasonable. Science has "proven" and found their "proven" information wrong to many times to count! No need to make scientist and science into a god also.

here is a small example of the errors in science

5 Famous Scientists Dismissed as Morons in Their Time

Yet, there have been brilliant rebels who put their own world-changing ideas on the line, only to end up like Doc Brown in his alternate timeline: humiliated, ridiculed, ignored and/or straight driven to insanity.

www.cracked.com...

You do know cracked constantly puts out articles poking fun at Christianity and climate denigher types right?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Noinden

Interesting, but why did one biologist that believes in creation ask this question.

How did those protein machines become so well engineered ?’

Similar educations and fields of study yet you both came to different conclusions, are you claiming to be that much smarter than a person with a similar education and career ?

Wow...so we've stooped to quoting Feng-Ling Yang's interview with the Watchtower, a Jehovah's witness rag, all while refusing to actually name the microbiologist in question. There's an interesting approach to take! Let's give this a little color and context instead of pulling a random quote in such a suspicious fashion shall we?

You've got a quote from 1 Microbiologist, I've worked with dozens of Anthropologists, Earth Scientists who specialize in evolutionary studies focusing specifically on human evolution. Nobody I've ever worked with or studied with( a number well into 100's of people) has reached the same conclusions as Dr. Feng-Ling Yang. Does the number or specialty make a difference? In this instance not really. Though to be realistic and honest, she represents a mere 5.5% of biologists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences. In other words, 94.5% of biologists, think she's full of S# because her conclusions are not evidence based. More to the point though, what does make a difference though is that Dr. Yang does nothing more than pose a question. That in and of itself is telling. She only poses the question but goes no farther. She doesn't respond to or qualify a response. She offers no answer or explanation, she goes no farther. No hypothesis, no testing, no papers, no science. Just a feeling. "This looks complicated, therefore God."

Any scientist worth their salt would have done more than pose the query. The query would have been the beginning of the discussion. The follow up would have included an answer to said query along with information to support it all.

If you actually read through Dr. Lang's interview w/ the Watchtower you see that she embraced religion because

I used to feel inferior because of my poor background, so I never told anyone where I grew up and never mentioned my parents. But I’ve learned from the Bible that God is not interested in social status. In fact, Jesus was raised in a family that was probably as poor as mine. Now I care for my parents and enjoy introducing them to my friends.

Jesus erased her shame and that led her to accept creation by a magic sky lord. Nothing was found wrong with the science, she decided after being targeted by 'Simone', a JW who quite literally targeted her and spent months working on this woman studying in a foreign country with no friends or family, teaching her their version of biblical reality and based upon acceptance of this reality, Dr. Lang shifted her world view to reflect that of her new faith. Empiricism played no role in this. Nothing was found wrong with the science nor was any evidence disputed. Her new friends and her new faith demanded the acceptance of this eventuality for her to fully accept Jesus into her heart.

I know for certain that this is how the JW's operate. There is a JW missionary in my area who has been visiting my home for a few years on and off. They took a long break after their 2nd visit because when they found out that not only did I fully believe in evolutionary theory but that I was an Anthropologist. They actually called in a "specialist" to come talk to me. Yes...they have specific people trained in dealing with people like me who approach agnosticism from a scientific angle. People who's sole purpose is to turn folks like me away from the dark side and into the light of the love of Jesus Christ.
At the end of the day, Dr. Feng-Ling Yang studies immunology not evolution so as long as she keeps looking for ways to fight cancer I could give two S#'s what she thinks about evolution vs creation until she publishes something that invalidates current accepted scientific models and evidence.

In the end if two people have a similar education in the sciences and one comes to one conclusion and one a different conclusion(creation VS. spontaneous life) , many here will just say, oh they are just loony. But that's really a lie, it boils down to a philosophical difference in world view.
And that is something people who fight against creation don't want to admit to, but it is the reality in the 21 century.

That's one interpretation to boil it all down to just a minor philosophical difference. The other is that people like me dismiss those who support the notion of biblical creation because it is not an evidence based practice. There is no such thing as "creation science". These people want to stand shoulder to shoulder with those who spend years and years dedicated to studying and yes...despite frequent protestations to the contrary, questioning, of all the data and evidence at hand while not being qualified to do so. This is the thing, the high end creation proponents/evolution deniers are the ones described by Noinden who practice out of their field. The vast majority have no basis, background or education qualifying them of anything resembling science. If you want to call yourself science, then you need to gather data, form a hypothesis, experiment, gather more data, and publish your results. Nobody has done that for creationism, so it gets no scientific regard. And no matter how you want to call the play, that really is the bottom line. Scientific approach is based on evidence, creation approach is equitable with "Wow, the sky is pretty...god must have done it".

a reply to: peter vlar

Now to be fair as far as I know Dr Yang's personal feelings have not influenced her publications. I only read a few of her 28 I linked too, but .. nope not a single "god did it" in there. She can hold her belief, she can wave it in a religious interview (possibly taken out of context I mean its the fecking JWs after all), yet still do her science. There might be a flat earther in a geology department, or an astronomer who thinks the sun revolves around the earth somewhere too. Ok probably not ....

a reply to: Noinden

Oh I totally agree. That's why I added the disclaimer

At the end of the day, Dr. Feng-Ling Yang studies immunology not evolution so as long as she keeps looking for ways to fight cancer I could give two S#'s what she thinks about evolution vs creation until she publishes something that invalidates current accepted scientific models and evidence.

So long as she sticks to her task at hand and follows the scientific method then I have no issues with her work. Just the premise that one statement made in an interview with a JW rag invalidates over 150 years of increasing evidence and data.

a reply to: peter vlar

Ahh but it was a publication by a religious organisation, one based on using a single reference for understanding the universe. What could possibly go wrong with that? Sigh I am not a big fan of the brain dead nature of many followers of Revealed religions. At least the Mystery Religions taught critical thinking

Too funny, go after one person to discredit them, that I never even mentioned by name.
It was meant as just a sample to make a point.
And the point had way broader implications, but alias it was lost on this crowd.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Then please, by all mean... Grace us with the wisdom of your Intent as it has gone over all our heads as apparently the replies have gone over yours.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Don't quote someone with out citing them neighbor. It is rude, and intellectually dishonest. A specialty you seem to be cultivating