Does science actually admit "design"?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually, the opposite is true. Getting out in the world and talking to people is what caused me to form that opinion. And I've been doing it since before I graduated from High School way back in 1972. The evidence of this sort of thinking going on out there is overwhelming. And it is apparent - IF you get out in the world and talk to people.

Yeah, I really don't believe you when you say that people revere science.

 

[Mr Darcy]

Yeah, I really don't believe you when you say that people revere science.

That's fine.

 

[Ophiolite]

... now that is honestly the most stupid thing I've ever seen anyone ever write on this forum.

I could give you a list.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Anatomy reveals design.

A study of embryology, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, paleoanthropology, etc., tell you that it's the result of the long-term accumulation of evolutionary changes, whether you wish to call it design or not.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And if people didn't hit trees at 100 mph there would be fewer auto deaths (or maybe if trees were softer).

You can choose to drive slower.
You can not choose not to eat and breath through the same tube.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think people can focus enough not to choke on stuff

Annually, some 4000 in the US alone, apparantly can't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Annually, some 4000 in the US alone, apparantly can't.

Annual deaths: 2,800,000
of these accidents numbered, 147,000
of these choking numbered, 4000

Tragic yes, but a small number (actually small enough to examine case by case).
Asphyxia is a leading cause of death of children, but more often involves choking on objects other than food, and from 'crib death' as well as smothering while sleeping with adults.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But I can't do that without major invasive surgery which would see me inserting two separate tubes.

You could have a fancy tracheotomy and bypass the choking problem. Of course you would then have sinus issues. Or you could have a feeding tube directly to your stomach thus bypassing your mouth. Of course you'll miss the taste and chewing sensation. You could also have a colostomy if you don't like the present design to eliminate waste. Bones can be shortened if you want to be shorter. Castration is available if you feel that you are too masculine, in fact you they can turn you into a woman if you'd like. Lot's of options here.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A study of embryology, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, paleoanthropology, etc., tell you that it's the result of the long-term accumulation of evolutionary changes, whether you wish to call it design or not.

Doesn't embryology link us to tadpoles, or is it chickens? (That might explain these urges to cross the road.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Doesn't embryology link us to tadpoles, or is it chickens? (That might explain these urges to cross the road.)

No.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You could have a fancy tracheotomy and bypass the choking problem. Of course you would then have sinus issues. Or you could have a feeding tube directly to your stomach thus bypassing your mouth. Of course you'll miss the taste and chewing sensation. You could also have a colostomy if you don't like the present design to eliminate waste. Bones can be shortened if you want to be shorter. Castration is available if you feel that you are too masculine, in fact you they can turn you into a woman if you'd like. Lot's of options here.

Alternatively, you could have a better design.

Oh, wait...

 

[W2L]

Alternatively, you could have a better design.

Oh, wait...

There is. 1 Corinthians 15:44, Romans 8:22, 2 Corinthians 5

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You could have a fancy tracheotomy and bypass the choking problem. Of course you would then have sinus issues. Or you could have a feeding tube directly to your stomach thus bypassing your mouth.

And that's a lot of hassle to go through to make sure that a person doesn't choke.

[QUOTE Of course you'll miss the taste and chewing sensation. You could also have a colostomy if you don't like the present design to eliminate waste. Bones can be shortened if you want to be shorter. Castration is available if you feel that you are too masculine, in fact you they can turn you into a woman if you'd like. Lot's of options here.[/QUOTE]

And this bit is where you REALLY just go off the depend. Like... why the ever loving... well I can't use the word for that, but why did you bring up castration of all things?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And this bit is where you REALLY just go off the depend. Like... why the ever loving... well I can't use the word for that, but why did you bring up castration of all things?

The mind is a deep mystery....

 

[pshun2404]

Let's face it, intelligence and design are essential elements of the scientific method itself! It always starts with an idea or question by an intelligent force (the scientist or student of the method).

What to use, and how it will be tested, is always the result of intelligence and design. Experiments do not design and perform themselves. The method is (hopefully) intelligently applied, minus the narrative by which results are INTERPRETED, that are also the product of an intelligence, can and often does yield a number of different data from which a best guess is often contrived (but not always).

Often when things are not quite working out, the elements or conditions are altered or affected by the one designing or performing the experiment in order to get closer to the expected or hoped for results (only an intelligence has this ability). The results are then interpreted (sometimes influenced by one's personal beliefs or previously held hypothesis) and supported by other intelligences that hold to or hope for similar often pre-conceived expectations. Thus, all of what we accept as science today (aside from direct and confirmed observation) is proof of the necessity of intelligence and design.

a) the scientific method was intelligently designed
b) most scientific experiments are intelligently designed
c) most conclusions result from intelligence interpreting the data

To design something means: to plan, make decisions, or develop specific protocols about something being made, built, or created, i,e,, to create the plans, orders of operations, steps of assembly, drawings, etc., that show how (something) will be made. : to plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose. : to think of (something, such as a plan) : to plan (something) in your mind and then bringing it to pass.

So science itself is by and depends on intelligence and design.

 

[tas8831]

If you don't see design there I can't help you.

TRANSLATION: Uh oh... I really shouldn't have mentioned anatomy. These guys see through my facade of knowledge. Whatever to do? GOT IT! I will just condescend and pretend!


Concession accepted, OWG. Withering on the vine continues.

 

[tas8831]

I'm a 'quick study'. I don't have to stay up nights agonizing over things like a college student cramming for an exam. Just a cursory perusal confirms elaborate, purposeful design.

Just a cursory perusal of Genesis shows me that it consists of the typical musings of pre-technological numerologists and primitive astrologers.

Wow - that IS much less work than actually reading and studying and using facts! The difference between your conclusion and my conclusion is that there are at least some facts that support mine.

Withering still...

 

[tas8831]

For one, what makes you think they were middle Easteners?

Well golly... The scribes of the scrolls that were later edited, translated, and compiled into what we now call Genesis were all living in the middle east, so...

For another what makes you think they were nearly identical?

The bible story.

Adam was created perfect, i.e. every racial genome already existed within him.

Evidence for this crazy assertion that is 100% contradictory to all known genetics mechanisms and phenomena?


Oh - question begging is fallacious, by the way.

Half was used to create Eve.

Evidence for this continued question begging?

Therefore we start with two non-identical beings. Each with half of a perfect genome. The two shall become one flesh (i.e. a new life)

Therefore?

Question begging assertions are not evidence.

Try harder.

Or even actually try.

But I am sure you have already forgotten that over 100 breeds of dogs were brought about from one wolf stock.

Through centuries of selective breeding premised on the acquisition of new alleles (not "allies') via mutation. Since that is where new alleles come from - not from hybridization.

How easily evolutionists forget this when they question how humans can do the same thing to themselves they did with dogs.

How easily the non-biologist question-begging creationist forgets that most dog breeds are produced via the selective breeding of different breeds.

Where did those different breeds come from in the first place, if we started out with wolves?

Yet wonder in awe how a mere 12 to 15 races came about, while claiming to understand how 100 breeds of dogs happened..... I find this selective memory, astonishing....

Not as astonishing as the fact that you main argument - Asian+ African yields Afro-Asian despite not being able to explain where an African or Asian came from in the first place.

I don't avoid it, you just refuse to remember dogs every time you ask.

You do avoid it every time, and you do not seem to understand even basic genetics to see that your claims are laughable.

Tell you what genius - if you think you are correct, and that dog breeding is analogous to getting all of the human 'races' we have today from a single breeding pair of middle easterners in just a few thousand years, how about you look at the wolf genome:

The wolf reference genome sequence ( Canis lupus lupus ) and its implications for Canis spp. population genomics

and compare it to a handful of dog breeds. Surely you should be able to find that the wolf genome possesses ALL of the alleles that these other breeds do.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wow - that IS much less work than actually reading and studying and using facts! The difference between your conclusion and my conclusion is that there are at least some facts that support mine.

Some things don't require 'study'. In fact most knowledge is attained without laborious study.
obvious | Definition of obvious in English by Oxford Dictionaries