Does science actually admit "design"?

OldWiseGuy said:

The point is that the 'experts' don't always get it right, and some of us 'obvious' guys do.

Click to expand...

via anecdotes and analogies? Doubt it.

I have also devised a way of 'hand splitting' firewood that is easier and much safer than the traditional method.

Click to expand...

Therefore Jesus?

Justatruthseeker said:

Well golly, wolves lived in the middle east and gave rise to the American Duschound.

Click to expand...

How? Let me guess - hybridization of two other kinds? Where did THEY come from?

You never get to that part.

All life arose from the middle east.

Click to expand...

Question begging - but thanks for admitting that Adam and Eve were middle eastern.

But a Poodle does not resembles the wolf, so why would you expect Adam and Eves descendants to to be recognizable to Adam and Eve, except as the same species?

Click to expand...

So... their supposed descendants could be pygmies, or Robert Wadlow, just because they had the alleles for pygmies and people over 9 feet? Please explain how that works.

The Bible told you Adam was created perfect,

Click to expand...

No it didn't. You made that up. Don't you even understand your own beliefs?

What, now you gonna pick and choose? But show me were the Bible told you there were identical?

Click to expand...

I am referring to what your fellow creationists have claimed, and from the bible itself. of course, creationists make all sorts of unsupported (via bible or evidence) claims, so who knows. For example, the clowns at AiG say that yes, God took a piece of Adam's side, but then make a whole new person with her own DNA - no bible references, of course, but hey - you make up what you feel you have to to rescue these old numerologists' myths.

Plus it is so weird - God made Adam, then the beasts from which Adam was to pick a mate... WHAAAA????? Yes - and only later did God do the clone thing:

Genesis 2
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul....

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

You got some 'splainin' to do!

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

Click to expand...

Genetics.

Click to expand...

Wow, great answer...

Try looking up how the junk DNA or non-functional DNA originated sometime. Its junk and non-functional, because that is what mutations cause to happen to functioning genomes.

Click to expand...

Then surely you can provide a few citations supporting your claim that junk DNA is all former functional genes, right?

And it is 100% compatible, which is again why you provide no sources in contradiction.

Click to expand...

You provide no sources in support of your assertions. Why is the burden only on me?

And I have provided you with links to the dog genome and such - where is your analysis showing that there are non-functional remnants of Wolf alleles in dogs?

Poor wolf 'allies'....

Repetitive Elements May Comprise Over Two-Thirds of the Human Genome

Got to run - might fiddle with the rest of this mess later.

Just one last thing for now -

Justatruthseeker said:

Since that is where new alleles come from - not from hybridization.

Click to expand...

That's Funny, the Grants through over 25 years of actual observation and testing found just the opposite of what you claim to be true in the real world, under natural conditions.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277516740_Grant_PR_Grant_BR_Phenotypic_and_genetic_effects_of_hybridization_on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316

"Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation.
Grant PR, Grant BR.. Phenotypic and genetic effects of.... Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277516740_Grant_PR_Grant_BR_Phenotypic_and_genetic_effects_of_hybridization_on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316 [accessed Apr 10 2018]."

Click to expand...

Wow, I explained in great detail how you were wrong about this, probably 4 or 5 times, as did others.

The Grants did NOT, ever, anywhere, write or imply that hybridization created new alleles.

VARIANCE is NOT new alleles.

Your continued misrepresentation of this, despite NUMEROUS corrections of your error, says a great deal about how your claims should be taken.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Are you seriously trying to twist my words? I DIDN'T SAY THERE WAS A DESIGNER NOR IS THERE A DESIGN.
You're the one along with oldwiseguy who says there is design, not me.

And why do some Christians on this website have a hard time answering simple questions? For your sake, I'll repeat myself: If you make the claim for there being design, then you open up yourself to questions about there being a designer. Do you accept this logic or not?

Click to expand...

First off I did not twist your words, I quoted YOU. These words do not say you believe in design they say IF you believe...THEN it logically follows....which is not necessarily true. Even some atheists have made the case for what appears to be design does not require "a designer". But I have shown you the demonstrable observable evidence shows there is design (which may or may not imply a designer). The observable demonstrable REALITY should trump any theoretical interpretations (narratives attached).

Do you agree that IF what can be described as design is there, THEN design is a possibility (with or without a designer)?

But yes a claim that design exists should elicit questions to demonstrate THAT claim (which I have provided), but do not necessitate diverting to the how that came to be (but it is fair to ask these questions as well).

Once one admits design is an equally plausible description of what is observed and demonstrated (which science should be based on not someone's theoretical paradigm) then the "how" that could happen is appropriate to explore and address.

So how about you? In light of the evidence, is it possible that design exists in nature?

pshun2404 said:

So how about you? In light of the evidence, is it possible that design exists in nature?

Click to expand...

What kind of design? 'Design' as functional arrangements of components? Or 'design' as intention?
Design in the first sense does indeed exist both in nature and in man-made objects. Design in the second sense is an unfalsifiable proposition wherever it is thought to exist.

pshun2404 said:

First off I did not twist your words, I quoted YOU. These words do not say you believe in design they say IF you believe...THEN it logically follows....which is not necessarily true. Even some atheists have made the case for what appears to be design does not require "a designer". But I have shown you the demonstrable observable evidence shows there is design (which may or may not imply a designer). The observable demonstrable REALITY should trump any theoretical interpretations (narratives attached).

Do you agree that IF what can be described as design is there, THEN design is a possibility (with or without a designer)?

But yes a claim that design exists should elicit questions to demonstrate THAT claim (which I have provided), but do not necessitate diverting to the how that came to be (but it is fair to ask these questions as well).

Once one admits design is an equally plausible description of what is observed and demonstrated (which science should be based on not someone's theoretical paradigm) then the "how" that could happen is appropriate to explore and address.

So how about you? In light of the evidence, is it possible that design exists in nature?

Click to expand...

A simple 'yes' or 'no' in the future would be better. I don't need a wall of text for you to say yes.

And no, I don't believe that design, as pertaining to a designer, exists in nature.

Speedwell said:

What kind of design? 'Design' as functional arrangements of components? Or 'design' as intention?
Design in the first sense does indeed exist both in nature and in man-made objects. Design in the second sense is an unfalsifiable proposition wherever it is thought to exist.

Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be impressive since "falsifiable" itself is "unfalsifiable"? One cannot prove that unfalsifiable is possible if it is true. If it is true, then it is NOT falsifiable. Example: The Sun IS. This is a reality...a fact that is not possibly false. Therefore it is true. Because something is unfalsifiable does not make it untrue. Materialistic experimental processes (which are all intelligently designed) are not the only way to determine if something IS or IS NOT.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through:

A) observation and
B) experiment

pshun2404 said:

Because something is unfalsifiable does not make it untrue.

Click to expand...

Good. Now you're beginning to get it. Nobody can disprove intelligent design (intention).

It's a start, anyway. Now, how can you prove intelligent design (intention)? The presence of mere design (functional arrangement of components) won't do it. With man-made objects intelligent design is inferred from the presence of evidence of human manufacturing techniques; tool marks, refined or man-made materials, etc. What about natural objects?

Speedwell said:

Good. Now you're beginning to get it. Nobody can disprove intelligent design (intention).

It's a start, anyway. Now, how can you prove intelligent design (intention)? The presence of mere design (functional arrangement of components) won't do it. With man-made objects intelligent design is inferred from the presence of evidence of human manufacturing techniques; tool marks, refined or man-made materials, etc. What about natural objects?

Click to expand...

Going from being unable to disprove something to being able to prove it is jumping from one extreme to the other.

What would be more useful is to produce evidence that would support the hypothesis of an intelligent designer. That would be the next step on from being unable to disprove one.

AnotherAtheist said:

Going from being unable to disprove something to being able to prove it is jumping from one extreme to the other.

What would be more useful is to produce evidence that would support the hypothesis of an intelligent designer. That would be the next step on from being unable to disprove one.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But the usual IDist strategy is to try to prove intelligent design and move on to the designer from there.

Speedwell said:

Indeed. But the usual IDist strategy is to try to prove intelligent design and move on to the designer from there.

Click to expand...

My intention was to include that within 'produce evidence that would support the hypothesis of an intelligent designer.'

Speedwell said:

Good. Now you're beginning to get it. Nobody can disprove intelligent design (intention).

It's a start, anyway. Now, how can you prove intelligent design (intention)? The presence of mere design (functional arrangement of components) won't do it. With man-made objects intelligent design is inferred from the presence of evidence of human manufacturing techniques; tool marks, refined or man-made materials, etc. What about natural objects?

Click to expand...

If there is design (not merely the functional arrangement of components) what does it infer to you? I define design as the dictionary defines it therefore I ASSUME mind is involved others do not. For J. Scott Turner the word “design” refers biologically to that “peculiar harmony of structure and function in the devices organisms contrive to accomplish things”, and we know from where this comes. All of THIS structure and function is predetermined by the information encoded for in our genome. I used the lungs as one example. The design for a lung, as opposed to a gill, is a foretold story already written prior to development of the end result. Now being that is a predisposed development already present in the Genome relative to each creature (for a fish it is gills, which all FISH have). But then where did that information come from? It is so specific to each different creature's genome that we call it the Genetic Code.

Speedwell said:

Good. Now you're beginning to get it. Nobody can disprove intelligent design (intention).

It's a start, anyway. Now, how can you prove intelligent design (intention)? The presence of mere design (functional arrangement of components) won't do it. With man-made objects intelligent design is inferred from the presence of evidence of human manufacturing techniques; tool marks, refined or man-made materials, etc. What about natural objects?

Click to expand...

One cannot prove or disprove intelligent design. But is there evidence that can indicate intelligence as basic to the formation of the Universe? That is a matter of interpretation of the evidence and all do not agree with that interpretation (like many aspects of evolutionist's interpretations of evidence).

For example, as cited before, we are pretty sure that all stars and planets formed in the same way. It appears to most that matter/energy followed or conformed to Physical/Chemical laws and principles in cooperation within a background of gravitation (a principle of matter. and space), strong and weak forces, and many more factors. But then one must ask where did these laws and principles came from. We know these did not develop themselves with no purpose or reason for their development.

So from this one fact alone one can infer (or at least wonder with an open mind) that the involvement of intelligence, consciousness, or mind is an equally PLAUSIBILE explanation. Some (especially a growing body of physicists) believe this is in fact very likely.

Unbeknownst to many there are two schools of thought that lean toward intelligence and design in nature. One group are the religious (scientists and others) who suppose or believe God did it and then try to interpret facts to fit their paradigm (just like many atheistic evolutionists do from their paradigm), and the second group are scientists and others who just come to this conclusion based on how they see the data and what it MIGHT imply.

Those who start with the hypothesis and interpret the data based on their presupposed view as opposed to those who objectively and with an open mind allow for the equal plausibility.

pshun2404 said:

For example, as cited before, we are pretty sure that all stars and planets formed in the same way. It appears to most that matter/energy followed or conformed to Physical/Chemical laws and principles in cooperation within a background of gravitation (a principle of matter. and space), strong and weak forces, and many more factors. But then one must ask where did these laws and principles came from. We know these did not develop themselves with no purpose or reason for their development.

Click to expand...

Hang on. How do know that?

As to the other point about pre-coded instructions in the genome here is one link:

The "God" Part of the Brain

Functional codes (which the genome is) do not invent themselves OR appear out of random coincidence

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Hang on. How do know that?

Click to expand...

Google the formation of stars and planets for a starting place....

pshun2404 said:

Functional codes (which the genome is) do not invent themselves OR appear out of random coincidence

Click to expand...

That is the proposition you are trying to prove. You can't use it as a premise in your argument.