Does science actually admit "design"?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Some things don't require 'study'.
obvious | Definition of obvious in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Except what seems obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except what seems obvious to you isn't obvious to everyone.

That's their problem.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's their problem.

No, it's definitely your problem because then the onus is on you to show evidence to support your claim.
And you and others who support creation and design have a very bad track record of doing that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, it's definitely your problem because then the onus is on you to show evidence to support your claim.
And you and others who support creation and design have a very bad track record of doing that.

It was meant as a general statement, not limited to crevo.

Regarding creation and design, if it isn't obvious to the observer, or if they are totally immersed in evolution, little else can be done.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It was meant as a general statement, not limited to crevo.

Yeah, no it kind of is.

Regarding creation and design, if it isn't obvious to the observer, or if they are totally immersed in evolution, little else can be done.

Bull roar.

 

[tas8831]

Some things don't require 'study'.

Indeed - like no study is needed to see when a person is out of their depth and relying on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

In fact most knowledge is attained without laborious study.
obvious | Definition of obvious in English by Oxford Dictionaries

And yet, those that actually DO study these biological and scientific issues come to very different conclusions than retired economists.

Seems that sensible, high-IQ types might wonder why that is.

 

[tas8831]

Regarding creation and design, if it isn't obvious to the observer, or if they are totally immersed in evolution, little else can be done.

Female hyena pseudopenis makes it obvious that no competent designer was involved in nature. Sadly, when one has an intense emotional/psychological investment in the veracity of ancient creation myths, no amount of reason or evidence will matter to them. Given the appropriate charismatic religious leader, these folks will guzzle poison in his name.

 

[tas8831]

That's their problem.

Only if there was a rationale for accepting that your mere say-so is representative of reality.

When one considers that you have admitted to being ignorant of biology, I am shocked that you could possibly believe that your uninformed opinions and impressions have any relevance whatsoever.

 

[tas8831]

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).

Wow, great arguments...


Almost as great as misrepresenting a paper and then running off to avoid having to admit that you got caught.

Like happened when you posted this:

American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60:279–317, 1983, clarifies that all australopithecine fossils are totally ape and nothing more. They do NOT represent apes on their way to becoming human. The myth that they do is politically necessary not scientifically factual.​

You'd think an autodidact may have taught himself NOT to misrepresent published science when there are many people active on a forum that have a tendency to check creationist sources due to a history of creationists misrepresenting science.


Because I checked that source (which, uncharacteristically, you did not link to or quote), and found that your characterization of it was, shall we say, bovine feces:

The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis. - PubMed - NCBI

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1983 Mar;60(3):279-317.
The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus afarensis.
Stern JT Jr, Susman RL.

Abstract

The postcranial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and the footprints from the Laetoli Beds of northern Tanzania, are analyzed with the goal of determining (1) the extent to which this ancient hominid practiced forms of locomotion other than terrestrial bipedality, and (2) whether or not the terrestrial bipedalism of A. afarensis was notably different from that of modern humans. It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality. A comparison of the specimens representing smaller individuals, presumably female, to those of larger individuals, presumably male, suggests sexual differences in locomotor behavior linked to marked size dimorphism. The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a "missing link." We speculate that earlier representatives of the A. afarensis lineage will present not a combination of arboreal and bipedal traits, but rather the anatomy of a generalized ape.

Imagine that - earlier specimens a more generalized ape, but later ones "missing links."

Right there in the abstract.

Did you even read THAT?​

My gosh - your "interpretation" was just about 100% WRONG.

Was it intentional - was that why you did not provide a quote?

Did you just see that misrepresented on a YEC site and decided to run with it?



Was it by Design?


And why did you run away from that thread, despite indicating that you would be back?​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah, no it kind of is.

Go back and pick up the theme.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed - like no study is needed to see when a person is out of their depth and relying on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

When it comes to judging my competence you may be suffering from this effect yourself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Go back and pick up the theme.

That your entirely incapable of supporting your own claims?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Female hyena pseudopenis makes it obvious that no competent designer was involved in nature. Sadly, when one has an intense emotional/psychological investment in the veracity of ancient creation myths, no amount of reason or evidence will matter to them. Given the appropriate charismatic religious leader, these folks will guzzle poison in his name.

Thanks for mentioning this phenomenon, it has much meaning for me after perusing several articles about it. The biology and sociology of the Spotted Hyena make perfect sense from a creationist point of view as a living metaphor for the rebellion of Lucifer.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That your entirely incapable of supporting your own claims?

I don't teach reading comprehension. You either get or you don't.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't teach reading comprehension. You either get or you don't.

Oh no I get it.
You're just very bad at explaining things.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for mentioning this phenomenon, it has much meaning for me after perusing several articles about it. The biology and sociology of the Spotted Hyena make perfect sense from a creationist point of view as a living metaphor for the rebellion of Lucifer.

That does not make any sense and is a very clearly and very poor ad hoc attempt at explaining away something that doesn't fit your beliefs.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That does not make any sense and is a very clearly and very poor ad hoc attempt at explaining away something that doesn't fit your beliefs.

Many odd natural phenomena fit my beliefs very well. If you believe in evolution this oddity is the fault of evolution, not creation. If I offered a reason why Goddidit you wouldn't understand it anyway. So go with evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Many odd natural phenomena fit my beliefs very well. If you believe in evolution this oddity is the fault of evolution, not creation. If I offered a reason why Goddidit you wouldn't understand it anyway. So go with evolution.

Why is it a 'fault' of evolution but not a 'fault' of creation?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh no I get it.
You're just very bad at explaining things.

Ref: Post #240.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why is it a 'fault' of evolution but not a 'fault' of creation?

It can't be a fault of creation if you don't believe in creation. That leaves only evolution as the problem.

I believe in creation but I don't see a problem. The genitalia of the female hyena seems to work just fine. They are the most populous large predator in Africa.