Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,024
- 7,402
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Again: to answer the question in the OP: nope, not at all.
People should not be afraid or get angst from the use of words to describe what they see. Both Intelligence and design are essential elements of the science! It always starts with an idea or question by an outside intelligent force (the scientist or student of the method). What to use and how it will be tested is always the result of their intelligent ability to design.
The method (hopefully) intelligently applied, minus the narrative by which results are INTERPRETED (which 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). When intelligence confirms a same conclusion (by other intelligences) it can be considered valid, and then it can be applied (by intelligent force of course) and people then design different applications.
When or IF things are not quite working out, the elements or conditions can be and sometimes are altered or effected by the one designing or performing the experiment (like in the Miller/Urey 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 presuppositions or accepted ideas) and supported by other intelligences that hold to or hope for similar explanations. Thus all of what we accept as science today (aside from direct and confirmed observation) is proof of the necessity of intelligence and design.
My friend, get honest this once. All we can know depends on intelligence. Intelligence to some degree or another is the prerequisite of all knowing. All of what we experience as reality, all we can study, all conclusions and hypotheses, all depend and rely on intelligence. After all would (could) anyone deny that the Scientific method is the process taken into account and applied in designing and performing all experiments?
Isn’t strict attention to experimental design essential (including but not limited to controls)? After all, the quality and reliability of its outcome is directly affected by its construction, purpose, and in some cases even the precise timing, and so on.
What rational person would (could) deny that one of the important treatments in many experiments is often the controlled independent variable(s) and these are usually established thoughtfully (by the experimenter) before actually doing the experiment. These naturally affect the observational aspects of analyzing the data.
Is not the specific question(s) the experiment intends to answer clearly thought up prior to performing the experiment? Of course it they are! Is not the answer or observational interpretation made in light of the intended outcome (hopefully for or against, but usually for)? Of course these things are true.
a) the scientific method was intelligently designed
b) most scientific experiment is intelligently designed
c) most conclusions result from intelligences 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.
Therefore science depends on design construed by intelligent beings. Thus...science admits design even though some scientists may not.
You just really enjoy waffling on, don't you?
As for many features of the Universe and living forms much CAN BE interpreted as design or designed even if some people like Dawkin's excuse this away calling the appearance of design an illusion.
Plus where waffling on implies a flipping and flopping between opposing perspectives and I am consistent then your accusation is unfounded. So can you ADMIT that the content of that post is correct? And if your paradigm does not allow you to be objective regarding it then what is wrong with it?
-_- the commentary was targeted towards Justatruthseeker, who thinks that mutations can't even account for the minor differences in human "races". I'm well aware that merely increasing in size isn't beyond what most creationists consider well within the realm of plausibility.Still Triops right?
-_- the commentary was targeted towards Justatruthseeker, who thinks that mutations can't even account for the minor differences in human "races". I'm well aware that merely increasing in size isn't beyond what most creationists consider well within the realm of plausibility.
-_- Triops taxonomy is a hot mess in need of reevaluation badly. Triops cancriformis has roots going back as far as 200 million years, while Triops longicaudatus, the species I am working with, has roots going back 70 million years. They don't live on the same continent or even share the same reproduction mechanisms. Heck, even within their own species, some populations reproduce sexually while others reproduce asexually. Plus, the species I am working with is entirely missing the second maxillae present in other members of the genus. People just don't give enough of a crap to bother readjusting the taxonomy.
Thus, I don't consider taxonomy a good measure of how much organisms have changed. Heck, there is a Nepenthes species that's just called "species 1" because despite people being aware of it for decades, no one cares enough to give it a formal name. You want to rely on that system to determine "if evolution has occurred"? Really?
What do you mean by "type?"Nope not me! And I already KNOW evolution has occurred (just not the transmutation of one type of organism into another different type only varieties of the same organism)
What do you mean by "type?"
What do you mean by "type?"
There seems to be no exactness at all about what you meant. I was hoping you would tie it to standard biological taxonomy.As in a cat verses a dog or an amphibian verses a reptile, though you already knew exactly what I meant
There seems to be no exactness at all about what you meant. I was hoping you would tie it to standard biological taxonomy.
But that's all the supposed presence of design is: an interpretation. There has never been any solid, proper evidence of design, ever.
Design is in the eye of the beholder. I behold design in everything biological, from form to function.
And yet A) you are not a scientist so you cannot say that science admits design and B) you have ZERO scientific evidence for design. Misunderstanding what scientists say is not evidence, it simply shows you misunderstand what scientists say.
Alas what science shows and what scientists say are often two different things and I have shown YOU this on many occasions.
Except all you've shown is an interpretation that science shows a designer. Nothing more.
What I was referring to, for example, was the difference between actual data regarding speciation (the actual science) which can be demonstrated and observed (only the production of variety), and the narrative attached (what some scientists say this means as interpreted through their presupposition). Or the Bats or Triops example or the theoretical plausibility of the Ancestor of the Gaps presupposition as opposed to what we actually have as data which equally offers an alternative plausibility. "Interpretation" works both ways in the many camps (even between different scientists). But assume what you want.
This thread is does SCIENCE admit design, not a designer (that's not the thread). Some scientists see design (others call it an illusion or appearance of) others do not see design at all based on the same science.
The tree didn't work so some see a bush, Woese and Venter admit the possibility of three trees interacting, and still others multiple separate trees of inheritance. All scientists admitting different POSSIBILITIES. Now we have eliminated trees and use a new man made intelligently designed device called clades...this will undoubtedly also change....
Yeah, I know you don't view changes in color, etc., as being beyond what mutation can do. Justatruthseeker is just the first creationist whose claims would be disproven by an evolution experiment that supports evolution due to his unusual views on mutations. From his perspective, I could not end up with a 5 cm Triops from a population in which the largest of the F1 generation was 3.5 cm without changing conditions or hybridizing the Triops. I have kept the conditions the same throughout and have added no individuals that didn't arise from the F1 generation. Heck, even if I wanted to try to introduce 5 cm individuals, I couldn't because the upper limit of the length of that species in the wild is 4 cm. I even had smaller individuals that lived longer, so continuous growth in combination with longevity is not an adequate explanation.Nope not me! And I already KNOW evolution has occurred (just not the transmutation of one type of organism into another different type only varieties of the same organism)
I'm sorry but are you being deliberately dense? This thread was started by a person who believes that God designed and created everything. So it's simply logic that when he says "science admits design", he is talking about scientists admitting that everything was designed by God.
This is not about scientists interpretations, nor is this about the change in the model of the process of evolution. This is about a non-scientist with a religious bent trying to get scientists to say something that they bloody aren't saying!
And you have still NOT ONCE shown that any evidence of something being designed! END OF!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?