ForumGarden

I started thinking about this when I saw this episode of Bill Moyers:

Full Show: Fighting Creeping Creationism | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

I don't know if Moyers pretends to be an objective journalist, but I doubt it. The kid he has as a guest is as doctrinal and dogmatic as any religious nut I've ever heard. And being from Louisiana, I've heard a lot of them!

Answer this question:

Do you think it possible for Man to eventually design and produce a living organism with DNA unique to our world? I do.

Is that not Man using his intelligence to design life? Intelligent Design!

If we are capable of intelligent design, then it is not outside the realm of possibility that another intelligence designed us. Maybe not Homo sapiens sapiens right away, but something that evolved into us.

It doesn't have to be a religious deity or magical being, necessarily. Maybe just a race of intelligent beings who lived long before us.

We can keep this discussion completely scientific, or at least science-based.

Bill has become quite the troublemaker, himself, in his old age.

I have always admired him. Not always agreed with him, but I always admire him.

I wish I had time to watch this whole thing now, but have to be up in the morning.

As for intelligent design, It has been on my mind for some time, and sure, there could be something to it, but this is more of a philosophical discussion that scientific.

YEC's scare me.

So the intelligence, as I see it, is in the atomic level.

Really quite elegant, don't you think?

And at the structure of cellular life forms. The whole reproductive process at the cell level is fantastic. It allows organisms to replicate and self-modify as environment changes.

It is at the higher levels the logic fails a bit, in that at some point most larger, more complex organisms become locked into a fairly limited role, and fall victim to the very environment that helped produce that particular collection of traits. But, then, those lines will, failing to adapt, fall away and their biomass will be replaced with some other, still adaptable life form.

It all seems really very well designed.

Well, until the current human form came along that seems intent upon ruining the whole plan, laying waste to the environment and creating one in which no life can exist.

And even in that, our little microbial lifeforms persist.

Well said.

When I read your description in the second paragraph, I see a lot of similarity with our free market system (when it's allowed to be free). People or businesses that become uber specialized will be very successful in very specific markets, then fail, die, and fade away when the market changes. Think buggy whip makers.

It's an interesting repetition of patterns. All life we know has DNA. All DNA is remarkably similar. The rise, fall, and replacement that is evolution is endless repetition of the same process.

"If we are capable of intelligent design, then it is not outside the realm of possibility that another intelligence designed us. Maybe not Homo sapiens sapiens right away, but something that evolved into us."

Maybe is not taught in science class. My son is a physics professor. Religious possibilities have no place in a classroom. I love speculation too, but that's for bull sessions or FG or Sunday School.

AnneBoleyn;1423490 wrote: "If we are capable of intelligent design, then it is not outside the realm of possibility that another intelligence designed us. Maybe not Homo sapiens sapiens right away, but something that evolved into us."

Maybe is not taught in science class. My son is a physics professor. Religious possibilities have no place in a classroom. I love speculation too, but that's for bull sessions or FG or Sunday School.


Of course 'maybe' is taught in science class. That's where hypothoses, experiments, and theories come from. Maybe and what if.

I'm curious - where in this thread do you find any suggestion of teaching religious possibilities in a classroom? Is the study genetics a religious practice now?

Do you think it possible for Man to eventually design and produce a living organism with DNA unique to our world?


Yes. I think we will be capable of much more than that eventually, up to and including releasing ourselves from our biological forms and becoming immortal. There will be creations that do not use a DNA format. Look into nanotechnology.

If we are capable of intelligent design, then it is not outside the realm of possibility that another intelligence designed us. Maybe not Homo sapiens sapiens right away, but something that evolved into us.


It is quite possible we were designed although I do not think it is likely WE specifically were designed by another being. I think the universe we live in is a conscious act, some being in some form set something in motion at sometime. This resulted in the universe we know, the universe we came from.

I could be dead wrong too. We could be a crop for some other species who will be along soon to harvest what they have sown for their own survival.

Accountable;1423468 wrote:

Answer this question:

Do you think it possible for Man to eventually design and produce a living organism with DNA unique to our world? I do.


Yes, but putting a bow on a dress does not make you an original designer. You still used the dress as a template for your design. Even if we should make a carbon-based original creature from DNA, and considering the complexity of DNA that's a while from now, it would still be based on our knowledge of Earth-based DNA. A copy, more or less, of ourselves, and therefore less than original.

Original would be developing a form of silicon-based crystalline life that had never been seen in any form.

Is that not Man using his intelligence to design life? Intelligent Design!


You put the two words together that the quasi-religious-pseudo-scientific right uses to describe "miraculous creation." Their theories are not scientific in any respect and rely on the idea that God miraculously created life in its current forms a short while ago, ignoring the fossil record and carbon dating, to name a couple of processes. Evolution as well...

I automatically drive a car, sometimes, while I'm spacing out thinking. Auto-driving Car! The printer prints out random self-check sheets, Self-Replicating machine! Just putting the two words together does not make the same meaning.

If we are capable of intelligent design, then it is not outside the realm of possibility that another intelligence designed us. Maybe not Homo sapiens sapiens right away, but something that evolved into us.


"The Light of Other Days" by Arthur C. Clark. It was one of his last and greatest books. It tackled exactly the premise you speak of. But, of course, even if a vanished intelligent race created mankind ...who created them?

I know you are trying to side-slip a justification for agnosticism into a theoretical argument. But I can place the same religious justification into the same argument.

'In the Beginning, God Created Evolution...."

Accountable;1423476 wrote: All life we know has DNA.


The key words there being, "we know." Not too persuasive since we have never left our own house for the city, much less the countryside...

Saint_;1423521 wrote: Yes, but putting a bow on a dress does not make you an original designer. True, which is why I didn't suggest it.

Saint_;1423521 wrote: You put the two words together that the quasi-religious-pseudo-scientific right uses to describe "miraculous creation." Exactomundo! A disingenuous attempt to fool an unwary public, just as the statists do with the words "Progressive" and "Liberal" when they mean centralized and government-controlled, "Patriot" when they mean "Police" (as in "Patriot" Act *spits*), "revenue increases" when they mean tax hikes, and "Homeland Security" when they mean fascist police state. However, the description I gave in the OP doesn't need a made-up title. It is simply describing someone using their intelligence to design something.

Saint_;1423521 wrote: "The Light of Other Days" by Arthur C. Clark. It was one of his last and greatest books. It tackled exactly the premise you speak of. But, of course, even if a vanished intelligent race created mankind ...who created them?Thank you for finally touching on the subject. I'll have to find the book in my library. Sounds interesting.

Saint_;1423521 wrote: I know you are trying to side-slip a justification for agnosticism into a theoretical argument. But I can place the same religious justification into the same argument.

'In the Beginning, God Created Evolution...."I wasn't doing that consciously, though I do seem to be more agnostic as I get older. It just strikes me that as dogmatic as some religious people get, they don't apologize for their dogmatism. On the other hand, many who support evolution are just as dogmatic, insisting that theirs is the ONLY explanation. It's as if they are afraid to investigate their own science because they might find it lacking. They have this in common with many religious folk.



Saint_;1423523 wrote: The key words there being, "we know." Not too persuasive since we have never left our own house for the city, much less the countryside...
I don't know why you think I was trying to persuade anyone with that post. It was just an observation. The caveat clearly shows that I was talking about the known, not the unknown.

Accountable;1423468 wrote: I started thinking about this when I saw this episode of Bill Moyers:

Full Show: Fighting Creeping Creationism | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

I don't know if Moyers pretends to be an objective journalist, but I doubt it. The kid he has as a guest is as doctrinal and dogmatic as any religious nut I've ever heard. And being from Louisiana, I've heard a lot of them!

Answer this question:

Do you think it possible for Man to eventually design and produce a living organism with DNA unique to our world? I do.

Is that not Man using his intelligence to design life? Intelligent Design!

If we are capable of intelligent design, then it is not outside the realm of possibility that another intelligence designed us. Maybe not Homo sapiens sapiens right away, but something that evolved into us.

It doesn't have to be a religious deity or magical being, necessarily. Maybe just a race of intelligent beings who lived long before us.

We can keep this discussion completely scientific, or at least science-based.


Then who designed the designer? The one that designed the designer is he/she/it god or is our god the one that designed us? If we create life are we now gods?

It's an argument that can never have any conclusion. I'm in the we really don't know but I don't think there is a god school of logic. The trouble with religious belief is not the belief itself but the propensity of it's followers to try and shut shut up anyone who disagrees or asks awkward questions. There can be only one god.

I think you need to teach comparative religion in schools and also how books like the bible and koran came to take the form that they did. Problem arises when we allow religion to be taught as if it is a "truth" that should just be believed without question.

Intelligent design is something dreamt up by the religious to try and counter logic. Science doesn't have all the answers therefore religion does. It's depressing in this day and age that there seems to be something of a religious revival going on in the world. I know otherwise very bright people who turn off their logic when it comes to their faith. Course I'm probably damned anyway.

Accountable;1423468 wrote: I started thinking about this when I saw this episode of Bill Moyers:

Full Show: Fighting Creeping Creationism | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

I don't know if Moyers pretends to be an objective journalist, but I doubt it. The kid he has as a guest is as doctrinal and dogmatic as any religious nut I've ever heard. And being from Louisiana, I've heard a lot of them!

Answer this question:

Do you think it possible for Man to eventually design and produce a living organism with DNA unique to our world? I do.

Is that not Man using his intelligence to design life? Intelligent Design!

If we are capable of intelligent design, then it is not outside the realm of possibility that another intelligence designed us. Maybe not Homo sapiens sapiens right away, but something that evolved into us.

It doesn't have to be a religious deity or magical being, necessarily. Maybe just a race of intelligent beings who lived long before us.

We can keep this discussion completely scientific, or at least science-based.


Doesn't Intelegent Design go far beyond that though? I thought the concept started with the universe having been designed for man to fit into before it ever moved on to the design of our entire ecosystem.

To answer your question, yes, man will get to the point where he can modify the lifeforms that he finds around him to make new forms of life to suit his needs - we're close on doing that now. I do not think that, in the short or medium term, he will learn how to create organic life to order, nor do I think that he will be able to design and create a complete ecosystem that would last more than a few generations before falling apart.

It is quite possible that life on this planet was seeded from outside or that the life on this planet was modified to "encourage" intelegent beings to evolve - that's a long way from Intelegent Design as I've seen it proposed.

gmc;1423599 wrote: Then who designed the designer?Personally, I don't care. It doesn't affect my life one way or the other. Even this conversation is nothing more than amusement for me. The truth is the truth regardless of our theories.

gmc;1423599 wrote: The one that designed the designer is he/she/it god or is our god the one that designed us?I don't know.

gmc;1423599 wrote: If we create life are we now gods?Of course not.

gmc;1423599 wrote: Intelligent design is something dreamt up by the religious to try and counter logic.Ah, and it is genius, isn't it? By misapplying a simple phrase they expose those that have substituted religious dogma for scientific rhetoric without actually changing at all. The people who hold scientific writings (rather than science) reject the entire idea of intelligent beings prior to humans only because to do so risks giving the religious some small bit of false credit. The science zealots are every bit as blind and dogmatic as the religious zealots.

Bryn Mawr;1423613 wrote: Doesn't Intelegent Design go far beyond that though? I thought the concept started with the universe having been designed for man to fit into before it ever moved on to the design of our entire ecosystem.

To answer your question, yes, man will get to the point where he can modify the lifeforms that he finds around him to make new forms of life to suit his needs - we're close on doing that now. I do not think that, in the short or medium term, he will learn how to create organic life to order, nor do I think that he will be able to design and create a complete ecosystem that would last more than a few generations before falling apart.

It is quite possible that life on this planet was seeded from outside or that the life on this planet was modified to "encourage" intelegent beings to evolve - that's a long way from Intelegent Design as I've seen it proposed.
Agreed. There's been far more power and influence applied to those two words than the phrase allows. It has become a label; a brand like those I mentioned earlier. I prefer the phrase, with the simpler definitions the words have always had.

I wonder, though, if our uber-PC society will allow to modify lifeforms to do our bidding. But then, as I write this, I realize we've been subtly modifying our food and pets for decades already.

Accountable;1423622 wrote: Agreed. There's been far more power and influence applied to those two words than the phrase allows. It has become a label; a brand like those I mentioned earlier. I prefer the phrase, with the simpler definitions the words have always had.

I wonder, though, if our uber-PC society will allow to modify lifeforms to do our bidding. But then, as I write this, I realize we've been subtly modifying our food and pets for decades already.


We've been modifying out food animals and pets for ten thousand years and we've already started to modify lifeforms to do our bidding from bacteria to produce medicines to crops that resist infections.

Bryn Mawr;1423642 wrote: We've been modifying out food animals and pets for ten thousand years and we've already started to modify lifeforms to do our bidding from bacteria to produce medicines to crops that resist infections.


So the biggest thing remaining for us to genetically modify is....ourselves!

I even know how it will start. It will most likely start with the women:

Doctor, "Well Ms. Smith, genetic testing has shown us that your baby is predisposed to leukemia. Would you like us to correct that?

Expectant mother, "Yes please!"

Doctor, "We can now attenuate your baby's metabolism so that they will be more physically fit during their lifespan, would you like us to fix that?"

Mother, "Yes please!"

Doctor, "Do you have a preference for the sex of your baby?"

Mother, "Male please."

Doctor, "We can increase your baby's intelligence, should we?

Mother, "Absolutely!"

"Would you like your baby to be metamorphic and good looking? Beautiful people have an advantage in our society."

Mother, "Of course!"

Doctor, "What color would you like your child's eye's to be?"

Mother, "Violet would be nice, it's my favorite color."

Doctor, "Hair color? Height? Musculature? Skills? Memory?..."

I can foresee a day when you design your child as easily as you design your avatar in a videogame today...

then later in the future...

Doctor, "Would you like your child to have gills? There's lots of free real estate under the ocean. How about a stronger skeleton that's iron based? We could give the baby hollow bones and extra musculature so that he can have wings like an angel. It sure makes the morning commute easier! How about the ability to use photosynthesis when he's hungry? Yes the skin is green, but all you need is an hour in the sun a day and you never go hungry!

If we change ourselves too much, are we still ourselves? Or does that even matter? "If God had meant people to fly, He'd have given them wings." But what if God gave them enough intelligence to give themselves wings? Isn't that almost the same as inventing the airplane?

All of this will be possible within the next century....glad I'll be dead and not have to deal with it...

Saint_;1423648 wrote: So the biggest thing remaining for us to genetically modify is....ourselves!

I even know how it will start. It will most likely start with the women:

Doctor, "Well Ms. Smith, genetic testing has shown us that your baby is predisposed to leukemia. Would you like us to correct that?

Expectant mother, "Yes please!"

Doctor, "We can now attenuate your baby's metabolism so that they will be more physically fit during their lifespan, would you like us to fix that?"

Mother, "Yes please!"

Doctor, "Do you have a preference for the sex of your baby?"

Mother, "Male please."

Doctor, "We can increase your baby's intelligence, should we?

Mother, "Absolutely!"

"Would you like your baby to be metamorphic and good looking? Beautiful people have an advantage in our society."

Mother, "Of course!"

Doctor, "What color would you like your child's eye's to be?"

Mother, "Violet would be nice, it's my favorite color."

Doctor, "Hair color? Height? Musculature? Skills? Memory?..."

I can foresee a day when you design your child as easily as you design your avatar in a videogame today...

then later in the future...

Doctor, "Would you like your child to have gills? There's lots of free real estate under the ocean. How about a stronger skeleton that's iron based? We could give the baby hollow bones and extra musculature so that he can have wings like an angel. It sure makes the morning commute easier! How about the ability to use photosynthesis when he's hungry? Yes the skin is green, but all you need is an hour in the sun a day and you never go hungry!

If we change ourselves too much, are we still ourselves? Or does that even matter? "If God had meant people to fly, He'd have given them wings." But what if God gave them enough intelligence to give themselves wings? Isn't that almost the same as inventing the airplane?

All of this will be possible within the next century....glad I'll be dead and not have to deal with it...


My guess is that we'll try it out on our cousins first - uplift a few chimps to do the menial tasks.

Oops, I forgot - we're dumbing down the proleteriat to do that.

Your scenario might happen for the rich and famous but they'll not let the rest of us have a look in - it will start with getting rid of inherited diseases, then a promise of a longer lifespan and, given we've too many people already, they cannot release that to the great unwashed!

Bryn Mawr;1423649 wrote: My guess is that we'll try it out on our cousins first - uplift a few chimps to do the menial tasks.

Oops, I forgot - we're dumbing down the proleteriat to do that.
:wah:

But really, I don't see us ever having living slaves again. We'll give pets civil rights first. Our next slaves will be machines ... as long as they don't look like people, because then we'll be giving them civil rights, too!

Accountable;1423658 wrote: as long as they don't look like people, because then we'll be giving them civil rights, too!


lol. Too true!

You know, I find America funny in that the single society that has gained the most through the fruits of science should be the same society that is developing an aversion to scientific thought.

(See: Creationism, Global Warming Deniers, Evolution Deniers, and Intelligent Designers)

Yup. We've gotten rich, fat, & spoiled. Thinking is hard. Going with emotions is much easier.

Saint_;1423660 wrote: lol. Too true!

You know, I find America funny in that the single society that has gained the most through the fruits of science should be the same society that is developing an aversion to scientific thought.

(See: Creationism, Global Warming Deniers, Evolution Deniers, and Intelligent Designers)


Sadly as well as all that talent you also got every religious nutter that got turfed out of a europe. We still have them but they're outnumbered by the sane.

Accountable: "I'm curious - where in this thread do you find any suggestion of teaching religious possibilities in a classroom? Is the study genetics a religious practice now?"

Perhaps from your OP?: "I started thinking about this when I saw this episode of Bill Moyers:

Full Show: Fighting Creeping Creationism | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

I don't know if Moyers pretends to be an objective journalist, but I doubt it. The kid he has as a guest is as doctrinal and dogmatic as any religious nut I've ever heard. And being from Louisiana, I've heard a lot of them!"

I realize this was your leaping point to your subject, but you obviously felt it necessary to state your opinion about the wonderful Zack Kopplin. You should live so long to have a student such as him. I was recently introduced to him on Bill Maher. He's brilliant, IMO, confident & intelligent. He is already, at his young age, having an excellent influence. As for science teaching theorems, hypotheses & experiments, they are taught as such, not assumed to be proven beyond measure or argument. That's the difference. True science requires irrefutable evidence, not wishes or imagination. Science is not a bully pulpit. Creationism is & has no place in anything but religious schools. Zack Kopplin is exposing how public money is being used through vouchers to establish creationism beyond science in schools. He's my hero.

AnneBoleyn;1423780 wrote: Accountable: "I'm curious - where in this thread do you find any suggestion of teaching religious possibilities in a classroom? Is the study genetics a religious practice now?"

Perhaps from your OP?: "I started thinking about this when I saw this episode of Bill Moyers:

Full Show: Fighting Creeping Creationism | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com

I don't know if Moyers pretends to be an objective journalist, but I doubt it. The kid he has as a guest is as doctrinal and dogmatic as any religious nut I've ever heard. And being from Louisiana, I've heard a lot of them!"

I realize this was your leaping point to your subject, but you obviously felt it necessary to state your opinion about the wonderful Zack Kopplin. You should live so long to have a student such as him. I was recently introduced to him on Bill Maher. He's brilliant, IMO, confident & intelligent. He is already, at his young age, having an excellent influence. As for science teaching theorems, hypotheses & experiments, they are taught as such, not assumed to be proven beyond measure or argument. That's the difference. True science requires irrefutable evidence, not wishes or imagination. Science is not a bully pulpit. Creationism is & has no place in anything but religious schools. Zack Kopplin is exposing how public money is being used through vouchers to establish creationism beyond science in schools. He's my hero.


I have met students such as him. He is dogmatic and simplistic, as would be expected of a kid with limited experience or education. Intelligence is not wisdom. The young man I saw on Moyers' show parroted what was taught to him, condemning one theory as blasphemy and another theory as Gospel. He acted exactly as his religious counterparts do. His religion happens to be anti-Christian and used his high school textbook for a Bible. I am optimistic that his college professors will shake him of the inane praise Moyers and his ilk are heaping on him and teach him to actually think.

Still, I didn't even come close to suggesting we teach religion or religious possibilities in a classroom. I suggested we consider that maybe we weren't created out of a random chain of events. How is that religious?

Accountable: Still, I didn't even come close to suggesting we teach religion or religious possibilities in a classroom. I suggested we consider that maybe we weren't created out of a random chain of events. How is that religious?

Did I say you did? If so, please show me.

Acc: I am optimistic that his college professors will shake him of the inane praise Moyers and his ilk are heaping on him and teach him to actually think.

I'm not. We must agree to disagree on the merits of the lovely & talented Mr. Zack Kopplin. Wish I were 30 years younger. Make that forty.

It might be a good idea to cease the use of the word "created". Life was not created, it came to be through natural events. It's no different than how planets and everything else in the universe came to be. Even if life on earth was planted by another foreign species, that would not change the fact that life itself began through natural causes regardless of what planet it might have begun. But the fact that this planet supports us in every way and we can now trace the atoms that is our makeup to the universe, ideas such as this hold little hope of actual proof.

Ahso!;1423838 wrote: It might be a good idea to cease the use of the word "created". Life was not created, it came to be through natural events. It's no different than how planets and everything else in the universe came to be. Even if life on earth was planted by another foreign species, that would not change the fact that life itself began through natural causes regardless of what planet it might have begun. But the fact that this planet supports us in every way and we can now trace the atoms that is our makeup to the universe, ideas such as this hold little hope of actual proof.


Planets are created according to the laws of physics. At some point life did not exist - it was created by some mechanism but the word does not dictate that the mechanism was animate.

And I say that the Universe was created to harbor and create intelligent life.

1. We've found that life will exist almost anywhere the conditions favor it...and some where they don't.

2. Life naturally evolves towards the more complex.

3. Intelligence will occur wherever life exists since it is the single best evolutionary mechanism for survival.

Therefore the Universe was built to create intelligent life.

Saint_;1423847 wrote: And I say that the Universe was created to harbor and create intelligent life.

1. We've found that life will exist almost anywhere the conditions favor it...and some where they don't.

2. Life naturally evolves towards the more complex.

3. Intelligence will occur wherever life exists since it is the single best evolutionary mechanism for survival.

Therefore the Universe was built to create intelligent life.


Can you show a general rule to cover point (3)?

Bryn Mawr;1423845 wrote: Planets are created according to the laws of physics. At some point life did not exist - it was created by some mechanism but the word does not dictate that the mechanism was animate.Physics didn't "create" the planets, natural events resulting from the Big Bang caused them to come into being, physics is merely a language/concept we employ to communicate the process.

Saint_;1423847 wrote: And I say that the Universe was created to harbor and create intelligent life.

1. We've found that life will exist almost anywhere the conditions favor it...and some where they don't.

2. Life naturally evolves towards the more complex.

3. Intelligence will occur wherever life exists since it is the single best evolutionary mechanism for survival.

Therefore the Universe was built to create intelligent life.Never mind that points two and three are wrong on face value, your problem still is establishing the intent suggested in the opening sentence.

Bring me your God and I will provide proof that him/her/it is a fraud.

Saint_;1423847 wrote: And I say that the Universe was created to harbor and create intelligent life.

1. We've found that life will exist almost anywhere the conditions favor it...and some where they don't.


True. We find life in some very odd places, where we once assumed no life could exist. I reckon we will continue do find such places until we abandon the idea if what is required to sustain life.

Saint_;1423847 wrote:

2. Life naturally evolves towards the more complex.
Are you certain about that? Data to support such a notion?

Saint_;1423847 wrote:

3. Intelligence will occur wherever life exists since it is the single best evolutionary mechanism for survival.
Again, supporting data. are virus' intelligent, then? Cockroaches? they have survived for a very long time.

Saint_;1423847 wrote:

Therefore the Universe was built to create intelligent life.


Great philosophy, but bad science.

Wow....you quote the "college" kid with 5 jobs, a military pension, a wife with $12,000 a day prescription drug costs, and a doctorate in basement dwelling?

Your credibility is increasing lars. Hang in there...you'll soon be quoting your server at mcdonalds.

halfway;1423893 wrote: Wow....you quote the "college" kid with 5 jobs, a military pension, a wife with $12,000 a day prescription drug costs, and a doctorate in basement dwelling?

Your credibility is increasing lars. Hang in there...you'll soon be quoting your server at mcdonalds. :)WTF are you talking about, Mr. Academia?

halfway;1423893 wrote: Wow....you quote the "college" kid with 5 jobs,
Actually, just four jobs, I work day school, lunch duty, after school program, and night school. But that's quite a bit for someone past a half century with Rheumatoid Arthritis. I'm quite proud that I am actually working at all, since over half of those with my condition are not working after five years. (I've had RA for 13 years.)

a military pension,
I wonder where you are getting that. I have never said I retired. I was active duty in the '80s, active reserves in the 90's and now I'm in the inactive reserves. You don't get a pension for that. I am also proud that I served my country, though. I remember some amazing times fondly. I remember I once saw New York...from Oklahoma. Pretty cool. There was nothing more amazing than night flying, too. I loved that.

a wife with $12,000 a day prescription drug costs,
Actually, our prescriptions combined are around $2,500, but It's $2,000 a month just for the Enbrel I take, so her prescriptions are, by far, less than mine. Thank goodness I have good insurance, although runaway medical costs still bother me. Why do they bother you?

and a doctorate in basement dwelling?
Hmm...not sure what you mean by that. I have an Associate of Engineering Technology from NMSU (San Juan College), a Bachelor's of Engineering Technology from NMSU, and a Bachelor's of Education from UNM. I'm very proud of all those degrees since I got them with no scholarships and no loans. I worked my way through all the degrees by working at night and taking day classes or vice versa. How many degrees do you have?

Your credibility is increasing lars.
Why thank you, and to think I had written you off as a person of no class..

Hang in there...you'll soon be quoting your server at mcdonalds.


Funny you should mention that. My first job, when I was fifteen, was at the original McDonald's where I live. It was tough work, but I learned some things about how a major international corporation works. Things that I had great use for much later in life. Quality control, stock control, HR tactics, and things like that. They came in handy in the corporate world and in many of my other jobs and careers.

So I guess you could say that I am the server and I'm quoting myself! LOL!

What all this has to do with "intelligent design as science" is beyond me, though. Shall we get back on topic now?

Ahso!;1423851 wrote: Physics didn't "create" the planets, natural events resulting from the Big Bang caused them to come into being, physics is merely a language/concept we employ to communicate the process.


Did I say it did? It would have been very lax use of language had I done so.

Bioengineers at Stanford University have created the first biological transistor made from genetic materials: DNA and RNA. Dubbed the “transcriptor, this biological transistor is the final component required to build biological computers that operate inside living cells. We are now tantalizingly close to biological computers that can detect changes in a cell’s environment, store a record of that change in memory made of DNA, and then trigger some kind of response — say, commanding a cell to stop producing insulin, or to self-destruct if cancer is detected.

Stanford’s transcriptor is essentially the biological analog of the digital transistor. Where transistors control the flow of electricity, transcriptors control the flow of RNA polymerase as it travels along a strand of DNA. The transcriptors do this by using special combinations of enzymes (integrases) that control the RNA’s movement along the strand of DNA. “The choice of enzymes is important, says Jerome Bonnet, who worked on the project. “We have been careful to select enzymes that function in bacteria, fungi, plants and animals, so that bio-computers can be engineered within a variety of organisms.
Stanford creates biological transistors, the final step towards computers inside living cells | ExtremeTech