"Intelligent design" creationism basically finished

Cypress said:
I should get paid for teaching you science. I had to pay tuition $$ and work hard to acquire the knowledge myself.

I accept your tacit confession that the process of abiogenesis is being tested.

You're jumping ahead to where abiogenesis achieves the status of theory - where cellular life is confirmed by a process originating from prebiotic material.

That is just a result of your scientific ignorance. A hypothesis is different from a confirmed theory in scientific inquiry.

A process as complex as abiogenesis is never going to be understood with one single grand test that settles the question for all time.

The Higgs boson was only a hypothesis in the early 1960s. It took 50 years of many baby steps and intermediate steps to confirm the Higgs field.
Click to expand...

Don't get to full of yourself
 
I AM said:
It's like you're trying to define fire,and ignoring what caused the spark
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I have about 7,392 posts on this board weighing the limits of scientific knowledge, which generally has limitations in explanatory power because it does not address efficient or teleological causes.

Science or mathmatical equations tell us virtually nothing about freedom, equality, fairness, justice, or mercy. On a day to day basis, most people aren't thinking about quantum mechanics, particle physics, or thermodynamics. They are thinking about how to best live a human life and what values to cultivate.

If I thought mathmatical equations and laboratory experiments gave the answers to everything, I wouldn't have wasted my time reading the Daodejing, the Dhammapada, the Analects, or The Republic.
 
Cypress said:
Incorrect. I have about 7,392 posts on this board weighing the limits of scientific knowledge, which generally has limitations in explanatory power because it does not address efficient or teleological causes.

Science or mathmatical equations tell us virtually nothing about freedom, equality, fairness, justice, or mercy. On a day to day basis, most people aren't thinking about quantum mechanics, particle physics, or thermodynamics. They are thinking about how to best live a human life and what values to cultivate.

If I thought mathmatical equations and laboratory experiments gave the answers to everything, I wouldn't have wasted my time reading the Daodejing, the Dhammapada, the Analects, or The Republic.
Click to expand...

It's like you're trying to define fire,while ignoring the spark
 
AProudLefty said:
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?
Click to expand...

If a creator is required for a single cell organism, what is required to create the creator? And who did it? This is a question that people like PMP avoid completely or dodge with a 'God has always existed'. The fact is that over billions of years, random events, even with very, very long odds, WILL occur. There are no questions that need God as the answer. None. Zero. Zip. Nil. Nada. There are still many questions that science has not answered, and there are observations that we do not have the technology to make. But every single time we were told that God was right up there under that rock, we turn the rock over and find science. EVERY. TIME.

If you wish to believe in a creator, be my guest..... but don't suggest that ID is logical in any meaningful way.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Assignment. Nothing attaches cosmic rays to the so-called Big Bang.
 
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...

Buzzword fallacy.
Math error. Discard of statistical math. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Attempt to predict using statistical math. Attempt to predict using probability math.

Neutrons do not decay into neutrons.
 
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...

You are starting to see he is actually building a paradox using a buzzword!
 
Into the Night said:
Math error: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Attempted prediction using probability math.
Click to expand...

It is not a math error. Stochastic events can be modeled in larger groups than individuals.

We can predict to a reasonable degree of accuracy the overall radioactive decay of a large assemblage of atoms, but each individual atom cannot really be predicted when it will decay.

That's what a "half life" is. It is a measure of half the population decaying. And it underlies not just radioactive decay but also a variety of other reaction kinetics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top