Does science actually admit "design"?

[OldWiseGuy]

Science is the servant of expediency, not morality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Usually you can come up with something in opposition to my posts.
You're slipping.

I think I was quite clear in correcting your unsupported claim concerning the goals of science and why "the supernatural" isn't included in any explanation.

The reason I gave was simply that there's no reason to include it, because it is indistinguishable from the non-existant or the imaginary.

You claimed some kind of hidden agenda.
I explained how that is utterly false.

 

[DogmaHunter]

SkyWriting said: ↑
...good design does not manifest itself in a vacuum, or as a result of thermal energy.



Excellent question!

My "why" was concerning your claim that "some intelligence had to be involved".

So: why must that be the case?
And before you simply repeat your nonsense above: we don't find ourselves in a vacuum. We find ourselves on a rocky planet with living things on it that reproduce with modification and which compete for limited resources.

So, same question, why MUST some intelligence be involved?
What is your reasoning for this?
What evidence can you present in support of such a claim?
How do you establish this?

 

[SkyWriting]

My "why" was concerning your claim that "some intelligence had to be involved".

So: why must that be the case?
And before you simply repeat your nonsense above: we don't find ourselves in a vacuum. We find ourselves on a rocky planet with living things on it that reproduce with modification and which compete for limited resources.

So, same question, why MUST some intelligence be involved?
What is your reasoning for this?
What evidence can you present in support of such a claim?
How do you establish this?

SkyWriting said: ↑
...good design does not manifest itself in a vacuum, or as a result of thermal energy.

 

[SkyWriting]

My "why" was concerning your claim that "some intelligence had to be involved".

So: why must that be the case?
And before you simply repeat your nonsense above: we don't find ourselves in a vacuum. We find ourselves on a rocky planet with living things on it that reproduce with modification and which compete for limited resources.

So, same question, why MUST some intelligence be involved?
What is your reasoning for this?
What evidence can you present in support of such a claim?
How do you establish this?

SkyWriting said: ↑
...good design does not manifest itself in a vacuum, or as a result of thermal energy.
Unless you have examples?
PLEASE let me help:
biogenesis - PMC - NCBI

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why you thinks I am protesting? I arnst not.

Sounds very much like you are.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sounds very much like you are.

I arnst not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I arnst not.

Actually, no, true. Protest might be the wrong word.
Complaining is definitely the better word. Protest kind of sounds like you have a legitimate point.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually, no, true. Protest might be the wrong word.
Complaining is definitely the better word. Protest kind of sounds like you have a legitimate point.

I was explaining, not complaining in the slightest.
Try to see past your personality projecting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was explaining, not complaining in the slightest.
Try to see past your personality projecting.

Except you weren't explaining anything. You were complaining that science doesn't detect or observe something that is unscientific, aka the supernatural.
Actually, you didn't even answer my question: How can it be a goal when there is no way include supernatural influence in science in the first place?

 

[SkyWriting]

Except you weren't explaining anything. You were complaining that science doesn't detect or observe something that is unscientific, aka the supernatural.
Actually, you didn't even answer my question: How can it be a goal when there is no way include supernatural influence in science in the first place?

I am nearing retirement from career in science.
The goal of science is to find documentable
causes for every effect one sees.
A co-worker in the lab has asked if they can
measure your skull. I can't answer for you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am nearing retirement from career in science.
The goal of science is to find documentable
causes for every effect one sees.
A co-worker in the lab has asked if they can
measure your skull. I can't answer for you.

I feel that you can give it a try: How can it be a goal (the exclusion of supernatural influence from science) when there is no way include supernatural influence in science in the first place?

 

[SkyWriting]

I feel that you can give it a try: How can it be a goal (the exclusion of supernatural influence from science) when there is no way include supernatural influence in science in the first place?

I tried on the complaining issue. After failing that point, I'll not try another.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I tried on the complaining issue. After failing that point, I'll not try another.

No, come on. I'm sure you can answer this question: How can it be a goal (the exclusion of supernatural influence from science) when there is no way to include supernatural influence in science in the first place?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How would it be possible for a real person to change their actual mouth movements to be out of sync with their vocalizations?

-_- some people just have weird mouth movements or very little mouth movement, it's very disconcerting to see. I remember seeing Jim Ross (wrestling commentator) talking as a kid and having a lot of troubles with it. His mouth moved less than a ventriloquist dummy.

However, unavoidable is the fact that many different words result in practically identical mouth movements, hence the large number of "bad lipreading" videos that were popular a long time ago. This shared lip movement can contribute to misunderstandings and even perceiving words very different from the ones a person actually said.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But we don't know what animals 'see'.

We can tell, to an extent, by behavioral studies and by studying their eyes. We can tell what wavelengths of light cone cells respond to, and we can tell if an animal can or can't see something based on response. This is especially easy to do with animals intelligent enough to train, such as birds.

 

[xianghua]

You're making my point. Visualize those lenses as living tissue. How exactly would that work? The brain is a more expedient way of consolidating images using a simple lens. Great system design.

Which 'optical' system would you prefer to view sights such as the Grand Canyon with? Is there any manmade system that can capture that view? I take lots of photos (digital images) and turn down many 'vista' shots as my expensive camera simply cannot capture what my mind sees through my 'flawed' eyes.

Also the eyes are part of a larger combined sensory system of smell, sound, motion, etc. No camera can duplicate this.

no camera can clean itself (the eye can). no camera can protect itself (the eye can). no camera can replicate itself by external system (the eye can). no camera can get its own energy source (the eye can) and so on. the eye is far more sophisticated than a video camera.

 

[DogmaHunter]

SkyWriting said: ↑
...good design does not manifest itself in a vacuum, or as a result of thermal energy.

Read the post you are replying to.

 

[DogmaHunter]

SkyWriting said: ↑
...good design does not manifest itself in a vacuum, or as a result of thermal energy.
Unless you have examples?

Biological evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am nearing retirement from career in science.

I'm not buying it.