Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote:Wow great post Kbcid, definitely one I'm going to save in my notepad, and your right that chemicals alone have never been shown to account for kind of system. This is exactly what perry Marshall proved when he went on the largest atheist forum. The people there were so frustrated that they tried to say that DNA is not a code but code-like , but perry was right, DNA is literally a code and through all of our experience a code or language has a mind behind it.
I think this is something that engineers and computer programmers have an easier time seeing, and it was why it took me so long to admit it myself, but I finally did:)

Thnku sir.

My POV has its foundation based on engineering of systems that are both mechanical and controlled by coding. In many cases I work with a programmer to make the mechanisms function correctly. One of the things that are comming on strong in this area is the understanding about spatial positioning of matter. The greatest thing I have found is that nothing can be replicated without spatial positioning control. Some may ask why such is the case and I have an answer.
As you can note above the code arrangement on DNA has no preferencial ordering it can occur any way it wants as I'm sure you already understand. However, this also applies to the formation of matter. Note that in the case of crystaline structure there is a mechanism that we can identify that performs the function of spatial positioning this is proven by repeatable experiments. When it comes to cellular components and cells themselves there is no such natural controller. Every thing can freely exist where ever the currents around it could carry it. Without spatial control of the matter that forms the parts of your body when they are layed down you would not exist. Even now we are intelligently designing ways to control matter down to the level of an atom;

Nanoelectronics: Transistors arrive at the atomic limit
...One of the main challenges now is caused by natural variations in the number and position of the dopant atoms in the channel, which leads to device-to-device fluctuations that are detrimental to operation1.
...creating single-atom devices in silicon — and controlling the position of every atom — is a daunting experimental task4...
...Michelle Simmons and co-workers report that they have reached an important milestone in atomic-scale device fabrication by building the first silicon-based single-atom transistor from the bottom-up...
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v7/ ... ANO-201204

Check this article out!

Molecular Manufacturing: Adding Positional Control to Chemical Synthesis
Introduction
Manufactured products are made from atoms. The properties of those products depend on how those atoms are arranged. Viewed from the molecular level today's macroscopic manufacturing methods are crude and imprecise. Casting, milling, welding and all the other traditional manufacturing methods spray atoms about in great statistical herds. Even lithography (which already lets us put millions of transistors on a chip no bigger than your fingernail) is fundamentally statistical and random. Exactly how many dopant atoms are in a single transistor and exactly where each individual dopant atom is located is neither specified nor known: if we have roughly the right number in roughly the right place, we can make a working transistor. For today, that is good enough.
The exception is chemistry. Large high purity crystals can have almost every atom in the right place. So, too, can many long polymers. The structures of proteins with hundreds and even thousands of amino acids can be specified down to the last atom. Most dramatically (and fortunately for us!) DNA strands with many tens of millions of bases can be copied with almost perfect accuracy. And it seems that almost any small molecule (with perhaps several dozens of atoms) can be synthesized, if only we have the skill and patience.
Yet the laws of physics and chemistry in principle permit arranging and rearranging the elements in so many combinations and permutations that all of our manufacturing skills and all of our chemical skills barely suffice to scratch the surface of what is possible.
...Almost any manufactured product could be improved, often by several orders of magnitude, if we could precisely control its structure at the molecular level...
...Molecular manufacturing will, by definition, let us economically manufacture almost any specified structure that is consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics...

Positional Control is Fundamental
Here, we introduce the fundamental concept of molecular manufacturing: positional control over the site of reactions...

Conclusion
The long term goal of molecular manufacturing is to build exactly what we want at low cost. Many if not most of the things that we'll want to build are complex (like a molecular Cray computer), and seem difficult if not impossible to synthesize with currently available methods. Adding programmed positional control to the existing methods used in synthesis should let us make a truly broad range of macroscopic molecular structures. To add this kind of positional control, however, requires that we design and build what amount to very small robotic manipulators. If we are to make anything of any significant size with this approach, we'll need mole quantities of these manipulators. Fortunately, any truly general purpose manufacturing device should be able to manufacture another general purpose manufacturing device, which lets us build large numbers of such devices at low cost. This general approach, used by trees for a very long time, should let us develop a low cost general purpose molecular manufacturing technology.
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/CDAarticle.html

I mechanically create structures down to a molecular level that perform functions and are controlled spatially by coding and function directed by coding. Soon biologists are going to realise that life exists on these same basic understandings. Until that happens though there will be people arguing that nature can just make formations of matter that function by random mutations... LOL.

KBCid wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Wow great post Kbcid, definitely one I'm going to save in my notepad, and your right that chemicals alone have never been shown to account for kind of system. This is exactly what perry Marshall proved when he went on the largest atheist forum. The people there were so frustrated that they tried to say that DNA is not a code but code-like , but perry was right, DNA is literally a code and through all of our experience a code or language has a mind behind it.
I think this is something that engineers and computer programmers have an easier time seeing, and it was why it took me so long to admit it myself, but I finally did:)

Thnku sir.

My POV has its foundation based on engineering of systems that are both mechanical and controlled by coding. In many cases I work with a programmer to make the mechanisms function correctly. One of the things that are comming on strong in this area is the understanding about spatial positioning of matter. The greatest thing I have found is that nothing can be replicated without spatial positioning control. Some may ask why such is the case and I have an answer.
As you can note above the code arrangement on DNA has no preferencial ordering it can occur any way it wants as I'm sure you already understand. However, this also applies to the formation of matter. Note that in the case of crystaline structure there is a mechanism that we can identify that performs the function of spatial positioning this is proven by repeatable experiments. When it comes to cellular components and cells themselves there is no such natural controller. Every thing can freely exist where ever the currents around it could carry it. Without spatial control of the matter that forms the parts of your body when they are layed down you would not exist. Even now we are intelligently designing ways to control matter down to the level of an atom;

Nanoelectronics: Transistors arrive at the atomic limit
...One of the main challenges now is caused by natural variations in the number and position of the dopant atoms in the channel, which leads to device-to-device fluctuations that are detrimental to operation1.
...creating single-atom devices in silicon — and controlling the position of every atom — is a daunting experimental task4...
...Michelle Simmons and co-workers report that they have reached an important milestone in atomic-scale device fabrication by building the first silicon-based single-atom transistor from the bottom-up...
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v7/ ... ANO-201204

Check this article out!

Molecular Manufacturing: Adding Positional Control to Chemical Synthesis
Introduction
Manufactured products are made from atoms. The properties of those products depend on how those atoms are arranged. Viewed from the molecular level today's macroscopic manufacturing methods are crude and imprecise. Casting, milling, welding and all the other traditional manufacturing methods spray atoms about in great statistical herds. Even lithography (which already lets us put millions of transistors on a chip no bigger than your fingernail) is fundamentally statistical and random. Exactly how many dopant atoms are in a single transistor and exactly where each individual dopant atom is located is neither specified nor known: if we have roughly the right number in roughly the right place, we can make a working transistor. For today, that is good enough.
The exception is chemistry. Large high purity crystals can have almost every atom in the right place. So, too, can many long polymers. The structures of proteins with hundreds and even thousands of amino acids can be specified down to the last atom. Most dramatically (and fortunately for us!) DNA strands with many tens of millions of bases can be copied with almost perfect accuracy. And it seems that almost any small molecule (with perhaps several dozens of atoms) can be synthesized, if only we have the skill and patience.
Yet the laws of physics and chemistry in principle permit arranging and rearranging the elements in so many combinations and permutations that all of our manufacturing skills and all of our chemical skills barely suffice to scratch the surface of what is possible.
...Almost any manufactured product could be improved, often by several orders of magnitude, if we could precisely control its structure at the molecular level...
...Molecular manufacturing will, by definition, let us economically manufacture almost any specified structure that is consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics...

Positional Control is Fundamental
Here, we introduce the fundamental concept of molecular manufacturing: positional control over the site of reactions...

Conclusion
The long term goal of molecular manufacturing is to build exactly what we want at low cost. Many if not most of the things that we'll want to build are complex (like a molecular Cray computer), and seem difficult if not impossible to synthesize with currently available methods. Adding programmed positional control to the existing methods used in synthesis should let us make a truly broad range of macroscopic molecular structures. To add this kind of positional control, however, requires that we design and build what amount to very small robotic manipulators. If we are to make anything of any significant size with this approach, we'll need mole quantities of these manipulators. Fortunately, any truly general purpose manufacturing device should be able to manufacture another general purpose manufacturing device, which lets us build large numbers of such devices at low cost. This general approach, used by trees for a very long time, should let us develop a low cost general purpose molecular manufacturing technology.
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/CDAarticle.html

I mechanically create structures down to a molecular level that perform functions and are controlled spatially by coding and function directed by coding. Soon biologists are going to realise that life exists on these same basic understandings. Until that happens though there will be people arguing that nature can just make formations of matter that function by random mutations... LOL.

Wow, that sounds like fascinating work KBCI, in your opinion where would be the best website to learn more about the nano comparison to life. Ever since my switch from evolution to ID Ive always wanted to get an even better grasp into this area but im just a layman when it comes to engineering and nanotech.

Also I really believe that when the next stock bull market happens that nanotech stocks will lead the way. There is a nanotech holding company called TINY. They have equity positions in over 30 private nanotech companies, and when the stock market is ripe for IPO's again this will take off, but its not good for ipo's right now.

KBCid wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Wow great post Kbcid, definitely one I'm going to save in my notepad, and your right that chemicals alone have never been shown to account for kind of system. This is exactly what perry Marshall proved when he went on the largest atheist forum. The people there were so frustrated that they tried to say that DNA is not a code but code-like , but perry was right, DNA is literally a code and through all of our experience a code or language has a mind behind it.
I think this is something that engineers and computer programmers have an easier time seeing, and it was why it took me so long to admit it myself, but I finally did:)

Thnku sir.

My POV has its foundation based on engineering of systems that are both mechanical and controlled by coding. In many cases I work with a programmer to make the mechanisms function correctly. One of the things that are comming on strong in this area is the understanding about spatial positioning of matter. The greatest thing I have found is that nothing can be replicated without spatial positioning control. Some may ask why such is the case and I have an answer.
As you can note above the code arrangement on DNA has no preferencial ordering it can occur any way it wants as I'm sure you already understand. However, this also applies to the formation of matter. Note that in the case of crystaline structure there is a mechanism that we can identify that performs the function of spatial positioning this is proven by repeatable experiments. When it comes to cellular components and cells themselves there is no such natural controller. Every thing can freely exist where ever the currents around it could carry it. Without spatial control of the matter that forms the parts of your body when they are layed down you would not exist. Even now we are intelligently designing ways to control matter down to the level of an atom;

Nanoelectronics: Transistors arrive at the atomic limit
...One of the main challenges now is caused by natural variations in the number and position of the dopant atoms in the channel, which leads to device-to-device fluctuations that are detrimental to operation1.
...creating single-atom devices in silicon — and controlling the position of every atom — is a daunting experimental task4...
...Michelle Simmons and co-workers report that they have reached an important milestone in atomic-scale device fabrication by building the first silicon-based single-atom transistor from the bottom-up...
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v7/ ... ANO-201204

Check this article out!

Molecular Manufacturing: Adding Positional Control to Chemical Synthesis
Introduction
Manufactured products are made from atoms. The properties of those products depend on how those atoms are arranged. Viewed from the molecular level today's macroscopic manufacturing methods are crude and imprecise. Casting, milling, welding and all the other traditional manufacturing methods spray atoms about in great statistical herds. Even lithography (which already lets us put millions of transistors on a chip no bigger than your fingernail) is fundamentally statistical and random. Exactly how many dopant atoms are in a single transistor and exactly where each individual dopant atom is located is neither specified nor known: if we have roughly the right number in roughly the right place, we can make a working transistor. For today, that is good enough.
The exception is chemistry. Large high purity crystals can have almost every atom in the right place. So, too, can many long polymers. The structures of proteins with hundreds and even thousands of amino acids can be specified down to the last atom. Most dramatically (and fortunately for us!) DNA strands with many tens of millions of bases can be copied with almost perfect accuracy. And it seems that almost any small molecule (with perhaps several dozens of atoms) can be synthesized, if only we have the skill and patience.
Yet the laws of physics and chemistry in principle permit arranging and rearranging the elements in so many combinations and permutations that all of our manufacturing skills and all of our chemical skills barely suffice to scratch the surface of what is possible.
...Almost any manufactured product could be improved, often by several orders of magnitude, if we could precisely control its structure at the molecular level...
...Molecular manufacturing will, by definition, let us economically manufacture almost any specified structure that is consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics...

Positional Control is Fundamental
Here, we introduce the fundamental concept of molecular manufacturing: positional control over the site of reactions...

Conclusion
The long term goal of molecular manufacturing is to build exactly what we want at low cost. Many if not most of the things that we'll want to build are complex (like a molecular Cray computer), and seem difficult if not impossible to synthesize with currently available methods. Adding programmed positional control to the existing methods used in synthesis should let us make a truly broad range of macroscopic molecular structures. To add this kind of positional control, however, requires that we design and build what amount to very small robotic manipulators. If we are to make anything of any significant size with this approach, we'll need mole quantities of these manipulators. Fortunately, any truly general purpose manufacturing device should be able to manufacture another general purpose manufacturing device, which lets us build large numbers of such devices at low cost. This general approach, used by trees for a very long time, should let us develop a low cost general purpose molecular manufacturing technology.
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/CDAarticle.html

I mechanically create structures down to a molecular level that perform functions and are controlled spatially by coding and function directed by coding. Soon biologists are going to realise that life exists on these same basic understandings. Until that happens though there will be people arguing that nature can just make formations of matter that function by random mutations... LOL.

They also tried to show it in a lab, and no matter how hard they tried they could never make it happen by random mutations. They tried it with the fruit fly experiments, they tried it with fruit flies and all they could ever get was a loss of information and helpless fruit flies that either died or were worse off then their predecessors.

I dont understand why they still cling to this fairy tale?

KBCid wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Wow great post Kbcid, definitely one I'm going to save in my notepad, and your right that chemicals alone have never been shown to account for kind of system. This is exactly what perry Marshall proved when he went on the largest atheist forum. The people there were so frustrated that they tried to say that DNA is not a code but code-like , but perry was right, DNA is literally a code and through all of our experience a code or language has a mind behind it.
I think this is something that engineers and computer programmers have an easier time seeing, and it was why it took me so long to admit it myself, but I finally did:)

Thnku sir.

My POV has its foundation based on engineering of systems that are both mechanical and controlled by coding. In many cases I work with a programmer to make the mechanisms function correctly. One of the things that are comming on strong in this area is the understanding about spatial positioning of matter. The greatest thing I have found is that nothing can be replicated without spatial positioning control. Some may ask why such is the case and I have an answer.
As you can note above the code arrangement on DNA has no preferencial ordering it can occur any way it wants as I'm sure you already understand. However, this also applies to the formation of matter. Note that in the case of crystaline structure there is a mechanism that we can identify that performs the function of spatial positioning this is proven by repeatable experiments. When it comes to cellular components and cells themselves there is no such natural controller. Every thing can freely exist where ever the currents around it could carry it. Without spatial control of the matter that forms the parts of your body when they are layed down you would not exist. Even now we are intelligently designing ways to control matter down to the level of an atom;

Nanoelectronics: Transistors arrive at the atomic limit
...One of the main challenges now is caused by natural variations in the number and position of the dopant atoms in the channel, which leads to device-to-device fluctuations that are detrimental to operation1.
...creating single-atom devices in silicon — and controlling the position of every atom — is a daunting experimental task4...
...Michelle Simmons and co-workers report that they have reached an important milestone in atomic-scale device fabrication by building the first silicon-based single-atom transistor from the bottom-up...
http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v7/ ... ANO-201204

Check this article out!

Molecular Manufacturing: Adding Positional Control to Chemical Synthesis
Introduction
Manufactured products are made from atoms. The properties of those products depend on how those atoms are arranged. Viewed from the molecular level today's macroscopic manufacturing methods are crude and imprecise. Casting, milling, welding and all the other traditional manufacturing methods spray atoms about in great statistical herds. Even lithography (which already lets us put millions of transistors on a chip no bigger than your fingernail) is fundamentally statistical and random. Exactly how many dopant atoms are in a single transistor and exactly where each individual dopant atom is located is neither specified nor known: if we have roughly the right number in roughly the right place, we can make a working transistor. For today, that is good enough.
The exception is chemistry. Large high purity crystals can have almost every atom in the right place. So, too, can many long polymers. The structures of proteins with hundreds and even thousands of amino acids can be specified down to the last atom. Most dramatically (and fortunately for us!) DNA strands with many tens of millions of bases can be copied with almost perfect accuracy. And it seems that almost any small molecule (with perhaps several dozens of atoms) can be synthesized, if only we have the skill and patience.
Yet the laws of physics and chemistry in principle permit arranging and rearranging the elements in so many combinations and permutations that all of our manufacturing skills and all of our chemical skills barely suffice to scratch the surface of what is possible.
...Almost any manufactured product could be improved, often by several orders of magnitude, if we could precisely control its structure at the molecular level...
...Molecular manufacturing will, by definition, let us economically manufacture almost any specified structure that is consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics...

Positional Control is Fundamental
Here, we introduce the fundamental concept of molecular manufacturing: positional control over the site of reactions...

Conclusion
The long term goal of molecular manufacturing is to build exactly what we want at low cost. Many if not most of the things that we'll want to build are complex (like a molecular Cray computer), and seem difficult if not impossible to synthesize with currently available methods. Adding programmed positional control to the existing methods used in synthesis should let us make a truly broad range of macroscopic molecular structures. To add this kind of positional control, however, requires that we design and build what amount to very small robotic manipulators. If we are to make anything of any significant size with this approach, we'll need mole quantities of these manipulators. Fortunately, any truly general purpose manufacturing device should be able to manufacture another general purpose manufacturing device, which lets us build large numbers of such devices at low cost. This general approach, used by trees for a very long time, should let us develop a low cost general purpose molecular manufacturing technology.
http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/CDAarticle.html

I mechanically create structures down to a molecular level that perform functions and are controlled spatially by coding and function directed by coding. Soon biologists are going to realise that life exists on these same basic understandings. Until that happens though there will be people arguing that nature can just make formations of matter that function by random mutations... LOL.

Wow, great post again KBCI. The field your in is amazing and I truely feel that nanotech is gonna be the next big thing.
I got one more question on this. Is there a website online which could explain in more layman terms what you just posted as to how it pertains to Life. Ever since my switch to id from evolution Ive always wanted to learn this connection between the 2 a little better then how I understand them now? I know there is the uncommon descent forum (of which I am a member of), but I would like to get a better grasp on this subject.


Also, I truely believe that nanotech is going to be the next craze in the stock market. There is a stock called TINY that has private equity stakes in over 30 private nanotech companies, and when the stock market is more condusive towards ipos these private companies are going to go public and its tiny is gonna rock. When tiny was called hhgp they did it the same way with private internet stocks and their stock went from 1 to 30 bucks lol.

Great little company.

bippy123 wrote:They also tried to show it in a lab, and no matter how hard they tried they could never make it happen by random mutations. They tried it with the fruit fly experiments, they tried it with fruit flies and all they could ever get was a loss of information and helpless fruit flies that either died or were worse off then their predecessors.

Indeed even the lenski experiments have only proven information loss. But this is not enough evidence for them.

bippy123 wrote:I dont understand why they still cling to this fairy tale?

Might I say Bippy... 'bullcrapola' we both know why... all religions have adherants that will cling to their beliefs unto death. These particular adherants simply try to convince everyone and themselves that there is no religion involved which is also poo on a stick. Welcome to the far side...
...of the veil, Bippy. Speaking of veil... years ago I finally realised what the biblical veil really means.

2Cor 3:14-15 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

God doesn't put a veil on anyone... he has permitted people to erect their own veil so that;
Mar 4:12 ...seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

God doesn't want those who don't want or need him and he permits them to form rationales to keep from realising the truth. But in truth they could do nothing unless God allowed it.

Joh 3:27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.

bippy123 wrote: I got one more question on this. Is there a website online which could explain in more layman terms what you just posted as to how it pertains to Life. Ever since my switch to id from evolution Ive always wanted to learn this connection between the 2 a little better then how I understand them now? I know there is the uncommon descent forum (of which I am a member of), but I would like to get a better grasp on this subject.

There is not Bippy. The concept is only just dawning on the minds of those who study biology. There are at least 6 papers that I have read that are concluding a need to explain the mechanism of how replication can occur and form precision formations of matter. Try looking up references to spatial organisation or 3d structure or something along that line and you will find papers that talk about its necessity but none that know exactly how it occurs. they just know that it is a requirement in order to explain how 3 dimensional formations can be made from coding.
Here is a must see for you to possibly get a grasp of the concept.

Time-lapse Tuesday: A frog's electric face
17:50 19 July 2011
How does an embryo know where its face should grow? This amazing time-lapse video reveals a surprising mechanism at work: electricity.
The footage shows a frog embryo early on its development. Watch carefully and around nine seconds into the video you'll see a flash of light and dark patterns that looks like a template for where the face will subsequently develop.
These patterns are called bioelectric signals - fluxes of charged particles shooting across cells - that are already known to be involved in the formation of organs which rely heavily on electrical signals to function, such as the heart. This is the first time that they've been spotted in the formation of such a complex embryonic structure.

"We believe this bioelectrical signal is a 'pre-pattern' - marking areas on the embryo that will become certain craniofacial structures," says Adam's colleague Laura Vandenberg. "What was most amazing was that this bioelectrical information is used to 'instruct' most if not all of the facial structures - the jaw, eye, nose, and otolith [a kind of ear bone]."
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/ ... -face.html

bippy123 wrote:Also, I truely believe that nanotech is going to be the next craze in the stock market. There is a stock called TINY that has private equity stakes in over 30 private nanotech companies, and when the stock market is more condusive towards ipos these private companies are going to go public and its tiny is gonna rock. When tiny was called hhgp they did it the same way with private internet stocks and their stock went from 1 to 30 bucks lol. Great little company.

Niiiice. Here is a cute little item that my company purchased for our engineering use just a few moths ago. Have a peek and see what you think;

Dimension Elite 3D Printer
http://www.dimensionprinting.com/3d-pri ... elite.aspx

Aaaaaaand coming to a hospital near you in the forseeable future!

Don’t transplant organs, 3D print them with living cells
http://www.3dprinter.net/atala-3d-print ... ving-cells

Amen Kbci, and thank you so much again for all the info. I have alot of great reading ahead of me
God bless

KBCid wrote:My POV has its foundation based on engineering of systems that are both mechanical and controlled by coding.
...
The greatest thing I have found is that nothing can be replicated without spatial positioning control. ... Without spatial control of the matter that forms the parts of your body when they are layed down you would not exist. Even now we are intelligently designing ways to control matter down to the level of an atom;

Certainly out-of-field experts can see things specialists miss and make major contributions through interdisciplinary research. But since there are two parts of the ID argument:
things intelligence can do
things nature can't do,
I will not be convinced until some chemists/biochemists/etc say that nature can't do this.

The links provided are very interesting. This is machining done on an atomic level with the similar mechanical devices. I don't see the direct correlation with natural processes which do not use machines.
This article http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/Habs/paper.html is a theoretical description of atomic level machining. The work was done in the early 1990's but for some reason the paper has never been published in the scientific literature.

Ralph C Merkle wrote:And it seems that almost any small molecule (with perhaps several dozens of atoms) can be synthesized, if only we have the skill and patience.

Now that's optimism.

with natural processes which do not use machines.

??
Guess you've never examined the inside of a cell.

jlay wrote:

with natural processes which do not use machines.

??
Guess you've never examined the inside of a cell.

Guess (no wait, Know) that you haven't even looked at the paper i read from KBCid's reference. Here i'll put it in again http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/Habs/paper.html.

Tell me how this kind of micro-machining imitates anything in the cell?

KBCid wrote:My POV has its foundation based on engineering of systems that are both mechanical and controlled by coding....
The greatest thing I have found is that nothing can be replicated without spatial positioning control. ... Without spatial control of the matter that forms the parts of your body when they are layed down you would not exist. Even now we are intelligently designing ways to control matter down to the level of an atom;

sandy_mcd wrote:Certainly out-of-field experts can see things specialists miss and make major contributions through interdisciplinary research. But since there are two parts of the ID argument: things intelligence can do, things nature can't do,

Aaaah here we go with the strawman argument again. So I will repeat the ID meaning....again... for the 4th or 5th time;

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof.
Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

It is quite clear that no part of the definition includes defining "things nature can't do".
The scientific method is not about proving what is not possible, if it were then scientists would have to disprove every imaginable concept anyone could conceive. The scientific method is typically based on finding what can be rationalised as possible. Failures of such experiments may indeed result in determining what can't explain something but this is a byproduct of the act of finding what can possibly back a hypothesis. I will reference the example I posted before;

I conceive that it is possible that standing on a crack will break your mothers back
you test this by standing on a crack and you eliminate my initial concept empirically
I modify my concept and say that it probably requires a bigger crack to work correctly
You are now unable to disprove my concept because you would not live long enough to empirically test every possible crack size.

do you still not understand the logic here?

sandy_mcd wrote:I will not be convinced until some chemists/biochemists/etc say that nature can't do this.

And I will not be convinced nature is capable of forming the same things that ID can form until we have empirical evidence for such an ability. So what is the difference between us? You hold a belief in the unproven notion that nature can form everything considered natural even though you have absolutely zero observable evidence to even make such an assertion. I on the other hand assert Id is required since living systems exhibit the same functionality and systematic operation that so far has only been exhibited as a result of ID. Thus my position is based on observable evidence and yours is based on simple belief and a priori conviction.

sandy_mcd wrote: I don't see the direct correlation with natural processes which do not use machines.
This article http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/Habs/paper.html is a theoretical description of atomic level machining. The work was done in the early 1990's but for some reason the paper has never been published in the scientific literature.

Of course you don't. You don't recognise what a machine is. Thus you can't see the correlation. The very first sentence of the abstract shows you didn't either read it or understand it.

Abstract
Processes that use mechanical positioning of reactive species to control chemical reactions by either providing activation energy or selecting between alternative reaction pathways will allow us to construct a wide range of complex molecular structures...

Mechanically controlled chemical reactions are standard operating proceedure in living systems. Spatial control of chemical constituents is how the cell exists as a controlled closed system without chaos within its boundaries. Molecular structures are also a typical formation from controlled chemical reactions. Example, proteins. The ribosome is a machine defined as a translator which also provides error correction as part of its mechanical functionality. Machines, machines everywhere.

Ralph C Merkle wrote:And it seems that almost any small molecule (with perhaps several dozens of atoms) can be synthesized, if only we have the skill and patience.

sandy_mcd wrote:Now that's optimism.

Optimism is a positive belief in something without any evidence for its truth. Craig Ventor has already sythesized and entire genome. we have empirical evidence of intelligences ability to perform that very action.

Craig Venter creates synthetic life form
Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form

The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.
The single-celled organism has four "watermarks" written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and help trace its descendants back to their creator, should they go astray.
"We were ecstatic when the cells booted up with all the watermarks in place," Dr Venter told the Guardian. "It's a living species now, part of our planet's inventory of life."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/ ... -life-form

How much optimism does it require to infer that "that almost any small molecule (with perhaps several dozens of atoms) can be synthesized" if we can already synthesize the structure of an entire genome?

Scientists Develop a Unique Small Molecule that Neutralizes Lupus Autoantibody Activity
What does it take to build a molecule from the ground up?
... Dr. Al-Abed and his team studied the structure of the peptide and began building a drug piece by molecular piece until they came up with a promising candidate they called FISLE-412. http://www.northshorelij.com/NSLIJ/Scie ... lizes+Lupu

Controlled Manipulation of Atoms and Small Molecules with a Low Temperature Scanning Tunneling Microscope
Abstract
With the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) it became possible to perform controlled manipulations down to the scale of small molecules and single atoms, leading to the fascinating aspect of creating manmade structures on atomic scale. http://plato.phy.ohiou.edu/~hla/HLA1999-1.pdf

Scientists Create World's First Molecule-Sized Electric Motor http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392464,00.asp

Gold medal! Scientists create smallest-ever version of Olympics logo - a single molecule with five familiar 'rings'
It's the smallest logo ever created - a single molecule 00,000 times thinner than a human hair, precision-crafted to resemble the five Olympic rings.
The molecule was purposely 'designed' by the Royal Society of Chemistry and IBM - and is called Olympicene.
It's an astonishing demonstration of how precisely synthetic chemistry can be controlled - made in a laboratory after a scientist doodled the logo and wondered if it could be created at the atomic scale. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -logo.html

KBCid wrote:What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.
...
It is quite clear that no part of the definition includes defining "things nature can't do".
And I will not be convinced nature is capable of forming the same things that ID can form until we have empirical evidence for such an ability.

And that is that. It is not just me; chemists/biochemists/biologists who study nature and have a much better grasp than I of what nature can and cannot do have no problem with attributing to nature what others attribute to intelligence. I will defer to their opinion.

i'll respond to the rest later

sandy_mcd wrote: It is not just me; chemists/biochemists/biologists who study nature and have a much better grasp than I of what nature can and cannot do have no problem with attributing to nature what others attribute to intelligence. I will defer to their opinion.

Science is based on scientific method. Since you trust what these people say then they should be able to produce the evidence that allows them to assert that nature can indeed do what intelligence can do. Just remember if they don't have evidence then you have faith in what they are saying with nothing but their belief to back them. This is a normal thing humans do. Some lead and some follow. Of course there are many like myself who question the evidence they base decisions on and point out where the evidence stops and the imagination begins.

Since you freely admit that you defer to opinions "chemists/biochemists/biologists who study nature" why do you waste your time on a christian forum. Obviously the experts you trust don't see a need for a designer and you reflect that belief system in every discussion here. It would appear that you will not entertain any consideration of design unless your nature experts tell you its ok so why argue against what you know for a fact cannot be true? I know I would certainly not hang out on the flat earth site or the geocentric site since I am empirically convinced they are obviously not in posession of logic, reason or empirical evidence to back their beliefs.

KBCid wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote: I don't see the direct correlation with natural processes which do not use machines.
This article http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/Habs/paper.html is a theoretical description of atomic level machining. The work was done in the early 1990's but for some reason the paper has never been published in the scientific literature.

Of course you don't. You don't recognise what a machine is. Thus you can't see the correlation. The very first sentence of the abstract shows you didn't either read it or understand it.
Abstract
Processes that use mechanical positioning of reactive species to control chemical reactions by either providing activation energy or selecting between alternative reaction pathways will allow us to construct a wide range of complex molecular structures...

Ok, let's try the second sentence: "An example of such a process is the abstraction of hydrogen from diamond surfaces by a radical species attached to a mechanical positioning device for synthesis of atomically precise diamond-like structures. " Please note they are talking about molecular structures and not synthesizing molecules. This is clearly referring to a standard machine shop instrument. Here are a couple of pictures comparing instruments shops to chemistry:

These are two totally different approaches to making things. The first cuts and pushes around atoms out of a metal and the second mixes chemicals which react.


The micromachining referred to in the paper can indeed be used to move atoms around:

This is not how nature does it. The machines operate in high-vacuum - something nature abhors.

KBCid wrote:How much optimism does it require to infer that "that almost any small molecule (with perhaps several dozens of atoms) can be synthesized" if we can already synthesize the structure of an entire genome?

This example demonstrates that it is easier to make a genome than some small molecules. I work as a lab technician and know many people who spend years trying to make these simple small molecules. Some are easy to synthesize but others have so far resisted all efforts.

KBCid wrote:What does it take to build a molecule from the ground up?
... Dr. Al-Abed and his team studied the structure of the peptide and began building a drug piece by molecular piece until they came up with a promising candidate they called FISLE-412.

That's a good question. This paper has no reference whatsoever to how the molecule was made. Why was it included?

KBCid wrote:Scientists Create World's First Molecule-Sized Electric Motor

From the linked article:

The motor is made of a single molecule of butyl methyl sulfide

Again. Surface science micromanipulations. This is not how nature works.
*** PS: Did you notice that the molecule illustrated does not correspond to the molecule named in the text?

KBCid wrote:Gold medal! Scientists create smallest-ever version of Olympics logo - a single molecule with five familiar 'rings'

This is pretty interesting, but it is standard chemistry in a beaker. Here's how they made it, by mixing solutions together. Where is the precise three-dimensional spatial control input by intelligence?
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Step 5

Step 6

Step 7 (not shown)


After making the molecule in bulk via standard chemical methods, they put some on a surface and abstracted one hydrogen atom with a microtool as described in the article by goddard et al. to give the symmetric free radical. That is pretty neat. But the rest is just old-fashioned chemistry.

PS How convinced are people that the two imaging pictures above represent different species?