The Nano Robots and Machines Inside You,

[Radrook]

This is an excerpt from a book written by a biochemist which supports the information provide in the threads video:

In his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, biochemist Michael Behe explained the surprising discovery that life is based upon machines:

Shortly after 1950 science advanced to the point where it could determine the shapes and properties of a few of the molecules that make up living organisms. Slowly, painstakingly, the structures of more and more biological molecules were elucidated, and the way they work inferred from countless experiments. The cumulative results show with piercing clarity that life is based on machines--machines made of molecules! Molecular machines haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along "highways" made of other molecules, while still others act as cables, ropes, and pulleys to hold the cell in shape.

Machines turn cellular switches on and off, sometimes killing the cell or causing it to grow. Solar-powered machines capture the energy of photons and store it in chemicals. Electrical machines allow current to flow through nerves. Manufacturing machines build other molecular machines, as well as themselves. Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus, the details of life are finely calibrated and the machinery of life enormously complex. 　 Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, pp. 4-5 (Free Press, 1996). Molecular Machines in the Cell | Center for Science and Culture

 

[Speedwell]

Calling any scientist who is or was not an atheist not a scientist proves my point about the loss of objectivity. It also places you in the dubious position of having to disqualify all those famous scientists which were indeed believers in an ID such as Newton, and others who have contributed to science and who continue to do so despite your petty opinion.

List of Christian Nobel laureates - Wikipedia

Interesting list. How many of those laureates believed in ID? Any at all?

 

[Radrook]

This video supplements the original one very nicely:

 

[bhsmte]

This video supplements the original one very nicely:

Please respond to post 182. Also, can you summarize the video for us?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never claimed that the SETI scientists agree. I lumped them together with all the rest of the atheist scientists who suddenly suspend their ability to see and resort to selective blindness and inconsistency of policy whenever anything indicates an ID in nature.

You mean like, the "atheist" scientists Ken Miller en Francis Collins?

ow, wait..................................

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you saying that DNA doesn't contain a message that is decoded by RNA?

A message is information that goes from entity A to entity B.

DNA is a molecule, not a message.

Claiming that it just involves chemicals doesn't explain the evidence of information and doesn't identify the information's SOURCE.

I guess it's a good thing then, that nobody claims it does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheistic Bias is the real reason.

"atheistic"... like Ken Miller or Francis Collins? Or our resident poster Speedwell?

Ow, wait...................


So how many more times am I going to have to point out that the rejection of ID has nothing to do with atheism, before you will stop claiming it?

 

[KCfromNC]

Calling any scientist who is or was not an atheist not a scientist proves my point about the loss of objectivity.

Good thing I never said that. Don't confuse "scientific" creationism with Christianity.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is an excerpt from a book written by a biochemist which supports the information provide in the threads video:

Yep, Behe is quite the advocate for ID :
"There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheistic Bias is the real reason.

Ken Miller, Francis Collins and Speedwell seem to heavily disagree.

You know that off course, as I have pointed it out to you a couple dozen times now...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is an excerpt from a book written by a biochemist which supports the information provide in the threads video:

Ow, goodie....

Michael Behe, the laughing stock of the scientific community and an embarassement to the university where he has tenure, who infamously had to declare under oath at the Dover trial that if ID is science, then so is Astrology.

Great reference you got there.......

 

[KCfromNC]

That's not an answer. Do you or do you not believe that the judge in the Dover case is lying about his religious beliefs?

Still waiting...

 

[bhsmte]

Would like to see radbrook respond to post 182 and summarize the video for us.

 

[Radrook]

You mean like, the "atheist" scientists Ken Miller en Francis Collins?

ow, wait..................................

Interesting list. How many of those laureates believed in ID? Any at all?

They are listed as Christians and their denominations provided. A Christian is a believer in an ID.

 

[KCfromNC]

A Christian is a believer in an ID.

Can't identify any of them who support ID, can you?

 

[Radrook]

A message is information that goes from entity A to entity B.

DNA is a molecule, not a message.



I guess it's a good thing then, that nobody claims it does.

There are messages in DNA. You need to look up the definition of the word "message"
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today

 

[Radrook]

Can't identify any of them who support ID, can you?

That is understood as a given.
Stop creating straw man arguments based on misunderstood meaning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They are listed as Christians and their denominations provided. A Christian is a believer in an ID.

You really need to stop lying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are messages in DNA. You need to look up the definition of the word "message"
Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today

Ok. Here's the full dictionary definition of "message" (bolding mine):

noun
1.
a communication containing some information, news, advice, request, or the like, sent by messenger, telephone, email, or other means.
2.
an official communication, as from a chief executive to a legislative body:
the president's message to Congress.
3.
Digital Technology. a post or reply on an online message board.
4.
the inspired utterance of a prophet or sage.
5.
the point, moral, or meaning of a gesture, utterance, novel, motion picture, etc.
6.
Computers. a warning, permission, etc., communicated by the system or software to the user:
anerror message ; a message to allow blocked content.

verb (used without object)
7.
to send a message, especially an electronic message.
verb (used with object)
8.
to send (a person) a message.
9.
to send as a message.


Not a single one of these is applicable to DNA. All of them refer to some type of communication. DNA is not communication or a means of communication. DNA is a molecule, shaped by the process of evolution.

 

[Radrook]

You really need to stop lying.

List of Christian Nobel laureates
List of Christian Nobel laureates - Wikipedia

Disagree? Then you need to contact WIKI and inform them that they are wrong.