Journey Inside The Cell


This animation shows how the digital information encoded in DNA directs protein synthesis inside the cell and provides a unique look at the evidence for intelligent design as described in Dr. Stephen C. Meyers book Signature in the Cell. For more information visit www.signatureinthecell.com







Channel: Tech
Uploaded: August 5, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Author: DiscoveryInstitute

Length: 00:03:35
Rating:
Views: 41425

Tags: intelligent design cell animation biology science evolution signature stephen meyer DNA

Embed Code:
Video Comments:
L00NGB00W (March 22, 2010 at 2:24 pm)
@anguspure

@anguspure

Because Man created God in his image. That's why?

You look at a hammer, and say that it was designed because it is purposefully made.
And therefore you say life was designed because it is purposeful.
But a rock or a big stick make a pretty darn good hammer too.
They are not designed.

It is presumptuous to think that just because we are intelligent, and capable of design, that it's the only way for complexity or purpose to arise.
L00NGB00W (March 22, 2010 at 1:25 pm)
@anguspure

That is somewhat my point, 'Believers' do require a supernatural explanation such as ID.

However, I think there is a conflict. Science shows us via evidence, a world that is much older, much more complex, and very different from the nature of the world as expresed in these revelations.

Scientists will likely never get to the top of that proverbial mountain.

Because each step we take, each discovery we make; reveals a plethora of new questions. The mountain grows.
ragnarthoris (March 22, 2010 at 10:12 am)
@anguspure

- I don't consider the question as "How did life arise without a creator?" but rather just "How did life arise?"

- Bullshit. Your purpose in this discussion is to rationalize you religion.

- And the only result is to reject certain theories, not produce one of their own but rejection of others.

- Which is far from what you said in an earlier post.
anguspure (March 22, 2010 at 1:09 am)
@L00NGB00W. ID turns this thinking on it's head a bit however and proponents contend that the best explanation for the presence of biological information is the same explanation as for all other forms of specific and purposeful information observed within the universe. And why not?According to relativity this universe has 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. 4 dimensions. Introduce some quantum considerations and there could be any number of (unobserved) dimnsions, unscientific of course ; ).
anguspure (March 22, 2010 at 12:56 am)
@L00NGB00W A person who beleives that the super natural exists and affects the natural world should have trouble with a definition of truth that of necessity excludes the super natural. But if one understands science as a bttom up method of investigation and 'faith' as trust in a revelation of the supernatural there is little conflict. Some scientists liken their research to climbing a mountain and suspect that they will get to the top only to find that the mystics have been there for centuries.
L00NGB00W (March 21, 2010 at 8:10 pm)
@anguspure

It depends on a person's ability to suspend faith,

I don't understand how a religious person can embrace science and faith at the same time. Since they oppose each other, Whilst maintaining their beliefs.

My statement, is that support of ID is support of faith. ID is not impartial. ID is not science.

Finally, Theists are just as bound to the "4" dimensions (I'd say three), as the atheists are. Despite what you may wish to think, An athiest can observe anything that a theist can.
anguspure (March 21, 2010 at 7:40 pm)
@L00NGB00W Fair enough as far as it goes. I do have one problem however. If scientific observations upon which the gnostic atheist bases his belief are limited to the natural world (4 dimensions within our observable universe), this person would be completely unable to recognise a supernatural god if he was to encounter one. The scientific gnostic atheist thus restricts his ability to discover truth in favour of the naturalistic scientific method.
L00NGB00W (March 20, 2010 at 11:08 pm)
@anguspure

"Even an atheist can be scientific, if they are willing to be impartial. My argument is that most are not impartial."

I'll break that down, I agree with bits.

"Even an atheist can be scientific"

As a rule, to be an athiest one must not believe in a god for some reason. To be truly gnostic atheistic means that one has reasons not to believe. These reasons are typically derived via scientific observation of facts versus religious mythology.

Otherwise they are not truly so.
L00NGB00W (March 20, 2010 at 8:14 pm)
@eaglestudios829

=(

I'm sorry but that's contradictory to what design proponents have said in the past.

The wing had to have been designed! no.
The eye had to have been designed! no.
The flagella had to have been designed! no.
The Chemical structures had to have been designed! Answer pending investigation.

Prior arguments suggest that you do believe that ID occured INSTEAD of evolution... Hmmm.

No. Evolution is concerned the origin of Species. not life.

That's Abiogenesis.
L00NGB00W (March 20, 2010 at 7:47 pm)
Oops I screwed that bit up.

To make water, you need

2 X H2+02=2 X H20

=)

1