Does science actually admit "design"?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In the sense that you creationists use that word!

And your reply to my post is an excellent example of that.
For you, the word "design" automatically means "designer", in the sense of a "person" or conscious entity.

But that is not the case. We can talk about the design of a snowflake - and in that case, we by NO MEANS are implying a "designer". Instead we are refering to the patterns inherent in snowflakes, its build up, its geometry,...

It is natural design.



And again with that word "admits".
As if I am "guilty" of something.

Stop being so dishonest. I made it perfectly clear what I meant by the word - which is very different from what YOU mean by that word.

When I say that "there is no design in life", then I am using that word like YOU are using it. With attached and implied baggage. A loaded word, if you will.


It is not and I explained how it's not.
But as expected from an intellectually dishonest creationist, you seem to be ignoring that part.


To "some"? To most, you mean.

And no, it's not really a mystery.
It's rather easy.... it's only implied, when the person has a priori fundamentalist religious beliefs which DEMAND such a designer.

Yes; I think it's quite reasonable to suggest that natural processes, including evolution, can design their products. Use of the word in this context is generally avoided in discussion with theists, especially creationists, because they seem unable to conceive of design as anything but the result of sentience.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I also believe that science is very close to coming to the conclusion that everything is made of nothing.

That depends precisely what you mean by 'nothing'. In a scientific context it generally does not mean complete absence of anything, but the absence of particles & radiation, even spacetime itself; but the fundamental quantum metric from which they are emergent remains.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That depends precisely what you mean by 'nothing'. In a scientific context it generally does not mean complete absence of anything, but the absence of particles & radiation, even spacetime itself; but the fundamental quantum metric from which they are emergent remains.

Nothing as in not observable or detectable but you "know it's there".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nothing as in not observable or detectable but you "know it's there".

You mean like how by looking at an anatomy book you can 'know' something was designed?

Looking at the anatomy of the human body as it is now tells you little of how it came to be that way. For a more informed opinion, you should study embryology, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, paleoanthropology, etc. That takes several years, even at graduate level.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... If God stretched out the heavens, and time slows as acceleration increases, and the universe is continuing to accelerate, then time would continue to slow. So by using clocks which now tick at a slower rate to calculate into the past where time happened faster, one would of course come to the wrong conclusions about age, without correcting for time dilation.

That doesn't apply. Relativistic time dilation only applies to acceleration through spacetime; the expansion of the universe doesn't involve that - it's a scalar expansion of the metric, i.e. spacetime itself is expanding - stars and galaxies are not accelerating through it - they are, in a sense, carried along with the expansion (much as points on the surface of an inflating balloon increase in separation without moving across the surface).

As a result, only a Doppler shift time dilation occurs; there's no significant effect on clock timings into the past.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Except we know from genetic DNA testing, and also with actual tests with Russian Red Foxes, that merely selecting for tamability is the cause of variation in dogs.

... They claim mutation takes millions of years, yet over 100 breeds of dogs were produced in a few thousand, and it had nothing to do with mutations.

... "By intense selective breeding, we have compressed into a few decades an ancient process that originally unfolded over thousands of years," wrote Trut in 1999.

Intense selective breeding can result in rapid changes; such changes have been observed in nature, but they're relatively rare - a few thousand generations can produce a new species given strong selection pressure. But most speciation takes far longer. But the domestication changes didn't go as far as speciation.

Where do you think the more domesticated variations they selected for came from? Mutations - the genomes of those foxes show the similar mutations to those of other domesticated species - mutations that are not found in the wild animals.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You mean like how by looking at an anatomy book you can 'know' something was designed?

Looking at the anatomy of the human body as it is now tells you little of how it came to be that way. For a more informed opinion, you should study embryology, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, comparative genetics, paleoanthropology, etc. That takes several years, even at graduate level.

Isn't a bit like taking an engineering course to get a drivers license? I didn't even wait for "Driver's Ed" to learn how to drive.

 

[Halbhh]

Think about what you are saying. If the background stars are at their claimed distances, then in 6 months or even 5 years, their velocity through space would matter not at all compared to their position in the sky in relation to us and would have no effect on parallax. The further an object is, the less it’s apparent position in the sky would change. Only objects closer than believed to be would be affected by their velocity in relation to us.

Also have you ever considered stellar aberration? Relativity claims that the only velocity that matters is the velocity between source and observer. But stellar aberration does not take this into account at all. Only the velocity of the earth matters in reality.

Stellar Aberration and Einstein's Relativity

Both fall off linearly with distance. See? Both apparent transverse motion and parallax. They both get smaller at same rate as distance increases.

This stuff is only geometry. It's got no complexity in the trigonometry.

(Next regarding the effect of aberration, in contrast to the non-orbital induced aberration, parallax has a 12 month period, and so the component of aberration due to our sun's velocity will have no periodicity (and also should affect all visual field nearby stars about the same). But as best I understand, annual aberration (the component due to orbital motion of the Earth) is consistent and known and so can be subtracted out.
A couple of things to consider about aberration is that it's independent of distance, and so we'd expect that the reference visual star field all around the target star also has essentially identical aberration all the time, always, as the target star. That's key.
Because of this general situation, I'd expect aberration is easily separated from parallax ( and also we can keep in mind a sufficient number of observations are needed separately just to separate out the actual transverse motion of the target star from the parallax.) In other words, aberration isn't much of a complication.
But about the article link you gave, this sentence seemed well...miskaten in concepts to me: "Observations show clearly that, in contradiction with special relativity, stellar aberration does not depend on the relative motion between the source and the detector but exists only when the detector is moving" >
We already know only the detector motion should matter (by theory). As best I know, light should travel independent of the emitter flowing a 'straight line' (so to speak) of the curvilinear spacetime curvature, and this is why only the detector motion relative to that spacetime reference frame matters and by theory the emitter velocity does not matter, or so I think (but feel free to check on that!).)

Good news about measuring distance to clusters just showed up. First you may need quick review
How ' Negative Parallax' works in my wording

Here's a news article just showing up about the exciting new and more accurate parallax measurement on a cluster.
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-hubble-precise-distance-ancient-globular.html

I think though we are getting away from the thread topic, but you could always start a thread on some question (or put it in the Astronomy News thread) and PM me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I granted you that, but some problems require more answers. It's not enough to know that gravity, acceleration, and inertia kills someone who jumps off a building. We need to know why they jumped.

Religion can't answer that either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, it just shows you refuse to accept that even life and DNA is made up of those same identical entities. Mainly because it shows how varied things can be without the need for dead theory, just interbreeding and the exchange of genomes into new formats.

The evidence doesn't support your nonsense.

I beg to differ, since all living organisms are made up of atoms, which are made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons as are rocks.

LOL!!!

So therefor all things behave in the exact same way and subject to the exact same processes, because they are made up of the same protons, electrons, etc?

Come on now... even you should know better.

The problem is yours, in explaining why some protons, neutrons and electrons are inanimate, and others produce life.

The subject of evolution deals with origins of biodiversity. Not the origins of life itself.

They are subject to the process of biology, since biological entities are made up of these same protons, neutrons and electrons as are rocks.....

LOL!!
So rocks and my cellphone are subject to biological processes, because they are made up of the same sub-atomic particles as actual biological entities?

This is getting more and more absurd.

And yet all life is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons that rocks are. Are you claiming the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up DNA are somehow different than the protons, neutrons and electrons that make up rocks? If so, please provide sources.

I'm not even going to diginify that with a response anymore.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In some cases, their "god" is the human intellect and the only measure of the power of that god is "science".

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that is just you defining it as such. But it is meaningless imo.

They virtually worship at the feet of science.

What does that mean?
What do you mean with "worship"?

For many, science is simply a very useful tool to figure out how stuff works. And many Christians fit into that subgroup.

Not all christians though.
Just look around on this forum.

 

[Herman Hedning]

What do you mean with "worship"?

I'm pretty sure he means something like this:

I don't think this is very common among scientists, but hey, what do I know?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm pretty sure he means something like this:

View attachment 225541

I don't think this is very common among scientists, but hey, what do I know?

All hail the allmighty Atom!

Maybe we'll see epic holy wars of the Darwinians vs the Neutronians or something.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Isn't a bit like taking an engineering course to get a drivers license? I didn't even wait for "Driver's Ed" to learn how to drive.

No, it's nothing like that. To learn about something you need to study the subjects that will tell you what you want to know; i.e. appropriate subjects. Reading Gray's Anatomy will tell you how the body is structured, not how it came to be that way.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, it's nothing like that. To learn about something you need to study the subjects that will tell you what you want to know; i.e. appropriate subjects. Reading Gray's Anatomy will tell you how the body is structured, not how it came to be that way.

Anatomy reveals design.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Religion can't answer that either.

Of course it can. Religion reveals why people do the things they do.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Anatomy reveals design.

How? Just because you say it does?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How? Just because you say it does?

It is pretty obvious. You don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind is blowing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It describes the human mental and spiritual conditions that lead to all social and personal problems, that can also cause material problems as well. Evolutionary science attempts to coopt this knowledge but in doing so reveals it's own weaknesses.

Not an answer to my question, or even an answer to your own thread.
How does anatomy reveal design? Just because you say it does? Why would a designer create a tube for breathing which we also use just as much for eating which leads humans to choke?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not an answer to my question, or even an answer to your own thread.
How does anatomy reveal design? Just because you say it does? Why would a designer create a tube for breathing which we also use just as much for eating which leads humans to choke?

Sorry. I changed that comment before I posted it. I don't know how comments are viewable before they are even posted.

Air and food both enter through the mouth, but go down different tubes that are separated/controlled by the epiglottis. Clever design.