"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

Into the Night said:
I am aware of it. Theories can come from anywhere, such as looking at the stars or even from watching an episode of Sponge Bob. Yes, that includes theories of science.
Click to expand...
I accept your belated confession you were ass-backwards wrong that we supposedly cannot observe past events.

Four generations of astronomers have observed quasars, galaxies, supernovae, even the afterglow of the Big Bang which are hundreds of millions to billions of years old.
 
Cypress said:
I accept your belated confession you were ass-backwards wrong that we supposedly cannot observe past events.
Click to expand...
Never said any such thing. Word stuffing.
Cypress said:
Four generations of astronomers have observed quasars, galaxies, supernovae, even the afterglow of the Big Bang which are hundreds of millions to billions of years old.
Click to expand...
Observing the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang???????!? That's an assignment, dude! Not an observation!
 
Cypress said:
I accept your belated confession you were ass-backwards wrong that we supposedly cannot observe past events.

Four generations of astronomers have observed quasars, galaxies, supernovae, even the afterglow of the Big Bang which are hundreds of millions to billions of years old.
Click to expand...

Practically yesterday
 
Into the Night said:
Observing the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang???????!? That's an assignment, dude! Not an observation!
Click to expand...

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) aka the afterglow of the Big Bang, can be directly observed in the electromagnetic spectrum. In fact our night sky would be glowing orange in the visible spectrum, if the CMB had not receded so fast away from us, that the EM waves got stretched into the microwave spectrum.
 
AProudLefty said:
Correct. And yet the numbers are random.

Same with lottery machine. You cannot predict the next lottery numbers.
Click to expand...

I see your confusion......the 6 and the 1 are not an event.......they are the observed results........the event is caused.........

you see creation......that is a result.....you still need a cause, unless its a random event......there is no third option.....
 
AProudLefty said:
I mean things are always in motion. Unexpected events happen all the time.

The only thing that are supposedly uncaused are virtual particles and radioactivity.
Click to expand...
Virtual particles seem to reach the philosophical threshold of uncaused.

Strictly speaking, it seems to me the weak nuclear force causes radioactivity -- and while we cannot predict when any one single individual neutron will decay, we can predict with statistical certainty the rate of decay of a population of neutrons.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I see your confusion......the 6 and the 1 are not an event.......they are the observed results........the event is caused.........

you see creation......that is a result.....you still need a cause, unless its a random event......there is no third option.....
Click to expand...

Correct they are the observed results and cannot be predicted. It can only be predicted over time with degrees of accuracy.

As I have stated, things are always in motion.

Consider the smooth pebbles you find in a creek. Did they happen randomly? Or through motion and natural laws? Do you think intelligence is necessary to explain the existence of such smooth pebbles?
 
Cypress said:
Virtual particles seem to reach the philosophical threshold of uncaused.

Strictly speaking, it seems to me the weak nuclear force causes radioactivity -- and while we cannot predict when any one single individual neutron will decay we can predict with statistical certainty the rate of decay of a population of neutrons.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It can be predicted over time. Same with any random events.
 
AProudLefty said:
Consider the smooth pebbles you find in a creek. Did they happen randomly? Or through motion and natural laws? Do you think intelligence is necessary to explain the existence of such smooth pebbles?
Click to expand...

again you speak of the results, the smoothness......that is caused by the water rushing past them.......eventually you must deal with the question of the cause of the rock, the cause of the water, the cause of the downhill grade that resulted in the movement.......ultimately you must deal with the cause of the natural laws.....

the problem you cannot overcome is this......if the natural laws are your "cause", then they must have come into existence at the moment of the event (the event being "origin" of our universe, labeled The Big Bang) because if they are the cause and they had existed a millenia prior they would have been the trigger a millenia prior......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
again you speak of the results, the smoothness......that is caused by the water rushing past them.......eventually you must deal with the question of the cause of the rock, the cause of the water, the cause of the downhill grade that resulted in the movement.......ultimately you must deal with the cause of the natural laws.....

the problem you cannot overcome is this......if the natural laws are your "cause", then they must have come into existence at the moment of the event (the event being "origin" of our universe, labeled The Big Bang) because if they are the cause and they had existed a millenia prior they would have been the trigger a millenia prior......
Click to expand...

One more time, the origin is not necessary for the theory of evolution.

And you've essentially asked what caused intelligence or Creator. It must have had a cause.
 
Cypress said:
It's not apples and oranges. Creating amino acids, peptides, and RNA precursors is directly relevant to abiogenesis research

Origin of life and the abiogenesis hypothesis has been a legitimate field of scientific research for 80 years..

It took decades of research and tests to confirm black holes, the Higgs boson, and electromagnetism.

You seem to be under the impression that if one single test cannot once and for all time show a cell grow in situ from inert chemicals in a test tube, then the science is not testable.

Failed tests are part and parcel of the scientific method. It's called the null hypothesis, and they are just as important as tests that reject the null hypothesis.

It might be the case that someday we will have to accept the null hypothesis and conclude that we cannot grow in situ cells in a test tube from inert prebiotic material. In that case, we will have to completely rethink the abiogenesis hypothesis.

But the fact that current origin of life research is providing fruitful results on peptides and RNA suggests we are on the right track.
Click to expand...

It's like you're trying to define fire,and ignoring what caused the spark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top