Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    10 Jul '13 07:19
    Unlocking The Mystery of Life

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jtp2IRk_y4&feature=endscreen&NR=1

    The Instructor
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Jul '13 09:24
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Unlocking The Mystery of Life

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jtp2IRk_y4&feature=endscreen&NR=1

    The Instructor
    More creationistic nonsense.
  3. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    10 Jul '13 19:10
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    More creationistic nonsense.
    These are not from creationists, but from scientists who were taught Darwinism and believed in and still do up to a point. Then through their research they discovered that at a point they were unable to logically explain the mystery of life by Darwinian processes.

    The evidence from the living cell led them to conclude that intelligent design was the best explanation for the origin of life. The video reveals their quest for the truth regardless of were it led and how they reached their conclusions.

    The Instructor
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    10 Jul '13 21:30
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    These are not from creationists, but from scientists who were taught Darwinism and believed in and still do up to a point. Then through their research they discovered that at a point they were unable to logically explain the mystery of life by Darwinian processes.

    The evidence from the living cell led them to conclude that intelligent design was the best ...[text shortened]... or the truth regardless of were it led and how they reached their conclusions.

    The Instructor
    Then they should be publishing their findings in a real science journal so they can fight it out scientifically based on evidence. Science is not done in a video. You seem to not understand that part. A video gives opinions only, not real science. You can't refute a video, it just sits their and spreads its BS forever, and if they are proven wrong, the video just keeps resurfacing as if nothing happened.

    Screw your video's, show me their scientific papers, where they published, how many citations their paper produced. THAT is real science.
  5. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    11 Jul '13 08:29
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Then they should be publishing their findings in a real science journal so they can fight it out scientifically based on evidence. Science is not done in a video. You seem to not understand that part. A video gives opinions only, not real science. You can't refute a video, it just sits their and spreads its BS forever, and if they are proven wrong, the vide ...[text shortened]... c papers, where they published, how many citations their paper produced. THAT is real science.
    You didn't even look at the video, so how could you know that they have not published anything?

    The Instructor
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Jul '13 11:08
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You didn't even look at the video, so how could you know that they have not published anything?

    The Instructor
    Show me the money. YOU find out the papers and the citations. They are YOUR buddies, not mine. I say they are not real scientists, maybe they have Phd's and such but if they have an agenda before they even do their research it is clear they will bugger up any data and cherry pick through it all in a vain attempt to convince weak minded people they are sincere in their so-called scientific research when in fact they are simply colluding with each other for religious political gains and have no real interest in actual scientific advancement.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Jul '13 13:49
    I'll give you an example from another area of science that show how real science is done: the search for extraterrestrial planets around other stars in our galaxy. There are several ways they can detect the presence of planets around stars even if they are 50,000 light years away, for instance by monitoring the brightness of the star very closely they can see in some stars a slight dimming of the brightness and if the timing of that dimming is regular, it can be deduced a planet is going in front of the star and partially blocking the light from that star.

    Another way of seeing planets is to look for blobs in the dust around new stars. There was a theory that blobs around the star could be protoplanets but now there is this:

    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-simulation-disk-anomalies-stars-planets.html

    Note, I am not touting the theories about planet formation. I am showing you how real science works. These dudes took exception to the original explanation and came up with some work on their own that got into the journals and now there will be further work so they can say yea or nay as to which theory explains what they see best.

    This is not scientists doing a video, this is actual scientific work. That is the point I am trying to make, scientists who make video's have another agenda besides what they are supposedly pushing on the video.
  8. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    11 Jul '13 14:22 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I'll give you an example from another area of science that show how real science is done: the search for extraterrestrial planets around other stars in our galaxy. There are several ways they can detect the presence of planets around stars even if they are 50,000 light years away, for instance by monitoring the brightness of the star very closely they can s ...[text shortened]... ts who make video's have another agenda besides what they are supposedly pushing on the video.
    At about 32 minutes into the previous video the problem of evolutionary scientist trying to find the origin of life came up and the former evolutionist Dean Kenyon is introduced as one who thought he had an explanation of how proteins could self-assemble themselves without the help of genic instructions by the chemical properties in amino acids. So he co-authored the book "Biochemical Predestination" with Gary Steinman in 1969, which was received very well by the scientific community and his theory was accepted as best for the next 20 years. He had thought that chains of amino acids were formed by the force of attraction between their parts at that time.

    Kenyon has a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford University and is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University and is now an intelligent design proponent as a result of new information that completely broke down his theory. It is explained in the following short video, so you need not look at the first long video with all the other info if you don't want to spend that much time.


    Dean Kenyon - The Charles Darwin of our time until...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_VYPy_BW68

    The point is that Kenyon was an evolutionist trying to prove an idea that supported evolution and became a proponent of intelligent design and creation as a result. This is one of the scientists on the first video I would like you to consider. He has published papers on chemical evolution, protocell models, and the RNA-world hypothesis.

    http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm


    The Instructor
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Jul '13 14:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    At about 32 minutes into the previous video the problem of evolutionary scientist trying to find the origin of life came up and the former evolutionist Dean Kenyon is introduced as one who thought he had an explanation of how proteins could self-assemble themselves without the help of genic instructions by the chemical properties in amino acids. So he co-au s is one of the scientists on the first video I would like you to consider.

    The Instructor
    Do you have links to their actual papers or the journals they were published in? That means a lot more to me than any youtube video. Papers don't make opinions or generalities, they deal with specific issues and real data. That's what I want to see, not opinions in a video.

    Did you look at the link I showed about planet formation? Just an example of real science.
  10. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    11 Jul '13 15:37
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Do you have links to their actual papers or the journals they were published in? That means a lot more to me than any youtube video. Papers don't make opinions or generalities, they deal with specific issues and real data. That's what I want to see, not opinions in a video.

    Did you look at the link I showed about planet formation? Just an example of real science.
    No, I do not have any links to the papers other than the critque paper that I posted.

    Yes, I did look at the link you posted, but I don't see that has anything to do with what we are discussing about the mystery of life.

    You will not take the opinion of a scientist turned creationist, but you have no problem taking the opinion of an evolutionist. What a surprise.

    The Instructor
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    11 Jul '13 15:51
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    No, I do not have any links to the papers other than the critque paper that I posted.

    Yes, I did look at the link you posted, but I don't see that has anything to do with what we are discussing about the mystery of life.

    You will not take the opinion of a scientist turned creationist, but you have no problem taking the opinion of an evolutionist. What a surprise.

    The Instructor
    I didn't take ANY opinion on the subject of new planets. I was just showing you an example of how real science works. I said in the post I was not touting planet formation one way or the other.

    You have a unique perspective on other people's words.
  12. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    11 Jul '13 16:19
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I didn't take ANY opinion on the subject of new planets. I was just showing you an example of how real science works. I said in the post I was not touting planet formation one way or the other.

    You have a unique perspective on other people's words.
    Well, I think it might be better for us to cease our posting to each other before we start insulting each other again. Okay?

    The Instructor
  13. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    12 Jul '13 10:50
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Well, I think it might be better for us to cease our posting to each other before we start insulting each other again. Okay?

    The Instructor
    So once again it is clear you could care less about how real science works, only your pathetic bid for your agenda, that is to destroy science and forward the program to force creationism to be taught in a science class and force evolution out. Nice work, especially for the self lobotomized.
  14. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    12 Jul '13 19:41
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So once again it is clear you could care less about how real science works, only your pathetic bid for your agenda, that is to destroy science and forward the program to force creationism to be taught in a science class and force evolution out. Nice work, especially for the self lobotomized.
    Why do you wish to continue with the insults? I care about the truth in both science and religion. However, you and I have such different worldviews that we seem unable to come to any common ground that we can agree with and as a result our conversation seems to gain nothing more than a few insults thrown about.

    The Instructor
  15. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    13 Jul '13 02:11
    Cell Intelligence

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHiSC4YmegI

    The Instructor