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.
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.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.
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.... 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.
You mean like how by looking at an anatomy book you can 'know' something was designed?Nothing as in not observable or detectable but you "know it's there".
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).... 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.
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.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.
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.
Both fall off linearly with distance. See? Both apparent transverse motion and parallax. They both get smaller at same rate as distance increases.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
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.
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.
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.
The problem is yours, in explaining why some protons, neutrons and electrons are inanimate, and others produce life.
They are subject to the process of biology, since biological entities are made up of these same protons, neutrons and electrons as are rocks.....
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.
In some cases, their "god" is the human intellect and the only measure of the power of that god is "science".
What does that mean?They virtually worship at the feet of science.
For many, science is simply a very useful tool to figure out how stuff works. And many Christians fit into that subgroup.
I'm pretty sure he means something like this:What do you mean with "worship"?
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?
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.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.
Religion can't answer that either.
Anatomy reveals design.
How? Just because you say it does?
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?
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?