What would refute creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

Ok I will save us both hours of our time, and simply include this in the list of unjustified assertions. // once you show that your assertion is true, I will remove it from the list

You forgot the special rule that you earned. Odds are that the person that posted them will respond here eventually.

When it comes to your claims there is no burden of proof on me. You only get corrections.

 

[leroy]

Sorry, that is a fail on your part. Right now the evidence indicates that abiogenesis is possible. A model must explain. Why is life arising on its own impossible?

Didn’t you noticed the questionmark”?”

I asked, what would falsify the claim that life came from none life naturally?

Why is life arising on its own impossible?

Because based on all the evidence and observations that have been made, aminoacids don’t naturally arrange themselves in the correct pattern and order that would produce say a “self-replicating molecule” that would then evolve in to something that we would call “life”

 

[leroy]

You forgot the special rule that you earned. Odds are that the person that posted them will respond here eventually.

When it comes to your claims there is no burden of proof on me. You only get corrections.

Sounds like a pathetic excuse to avoid my arguments

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like a pathetic excuse to avoid my arguments

No, you simply will not debate properly so special rules had to be made I got tired of supporting the same claim time after time. You know that this is true too.

Why is it so difficult to debate properly? You did not read the OP here, nor the follow up posts. You were corrected on that, and not just by me. You did not follow the directions of the OP in making a model.

 

[Jose Fly]

Easy. The Cambrian Explosion.

If there is a creator, the prediction is that we would see most life forms appear suddenly in the fossil record without obvious precursors. (Stress on “obvious”, since there was life before it.)

That’s exactly what we observe.

To falsify, find those obvious precursors.

A couple of questions....

First, how would that falsify creation by gods? Are you saying gods are incapable of creating in a way where "obvious precursors" exist between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian organisms?

Second, who decides what is or isn't an "obvious precursor"? Surely it can't be Jehovah's Witnesses, given their extreme level of bias on the subject (e.g., "If evolution is true life has no lasting purpose").

 

[leroy]

And again, I appreciate this but try to cut down on the nonsense. This thread exists to see if creationists can generate any scientific evidence at all for their beliefs.

To do so you must first make a.model of creationism. The model needs to be falsifiable if you want to claim to have scientific evidence for creationism. That is how.science works.

I did answer to your request

What you this thread requires you to do is to come up with a hypothesis for creationism and tell us what test based upon the hypothesis's predictions would refute it.

As I explained earlier, my hypothesis is that amino acids don’t naturally arrange in to self-replicating molecules, which is why I suggest that life can’t come from none life naturally.

As an analogy, given that ink doesn’t naturally organic itself in to meaningful words and sentences, the existence of a paper with meaningfull words and sentences written with ink, would indicate ID.

This is confirmed by all observations that have ever been made.

The hypothesis would be falsified if, you show that under “X” or “Y” circumstance things are different and amino acids naturally organized in a pattern such that self replicating molecules would form

.......
So it what way did I failed to meet your request in the OP?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did answer to your request


As I explained earlier, my hypothesis is that amino acids don’t naturally arrange in to self-replicating molecules, which is why I suggest that life can’t come from none life naturally.

As an analogy, given that ink doesn’t naturally organic itself in to meaningful words and sentences, the existence of a paper with meaningfull words and sentences written with ink, would indicate ID.

This is confirmed by all observations that have ever been made.

The hypothesis would be falsified if, you show that under “X” or “Y” circumstance things are different and amino acids naturally organized in a pattern such that self replicating molecules would form

.......
So it what way did I failed to meet your request in the OP?

Your hand waving example had zero predictive powers. It had zero explanatory powers. That was not a model or hypothesis.

 

[leroy]

Your hand waving example had zero predictive powers.

YES, it predicts that amino acids don’t “become” self replicating molecules by themselves

It had zero explanatory powers

.

Yes, it explains why is life complex for example.

] That was not a model or hypothesis.

Why not?
Because you say so?

Define hypothesis and explain why my statement doesn’t meet that definition ….

 

[Subduction Zone]

YES, it predicts that amino acids don’t “become” self replicating molecules by themselves

No, that is the claim. It is not a prediction. You failed right there.


.

Yes, it explains why is life complex for example.

Where? Once again you only have a claim.

Why not?
Because you say so?

Define hypothesis and explain why my statement doesn’t meet that definition ….

No, because I know so. This is the sort of behavior that makes it unnecessary to provide you with any links. You do not appear to be genuine when you debate. You will not make a real point and admit when one of your bogus claims have been refuted.

When you can't support your claims the proper thing to do is to admit it.

 

[F1fan]

Well that is easy, the discovery of a natural mechanism that can create life from none life, would refute ID.. (or the idea that life was created by an ID)

Too bad Dr. Frankenstein died in that fire, his testimony would be crucial for you.

But that’s ok because your straw man claim here is a fiction too.
There is no “ life from non- life” in science. What there is is a hypothesis that explains how inorganic molecules can convert to organic molecules in nature, and these are the building blocks of life.

What would falsify your claim that life came from none life naturally?..................who is ready for 100 posts without a direct answer?

Is the son of Dr. Frankenstein on call?

 

[leroy]

No, that is the claim. It is not a prediction. You failed right there.


.

Where? Once again you only have a claim.






No, because I know so. This is the sort of behavior that makes it unnecessary to provide you with any links. You do not appear to be genuine when you debate. You will not make a real point and admit when one of your bogus claims have been refuted.

When you can't support your claims the proper thing to do is to admit it.

Ok,

My hypothesis would be:

Life was caused by an intelligent designer

Evidence:

Life has (and has always had) the attribute of specified complexity. / things that have this attribute are likely to be caused by a mind. (obviously this is an oversimplification, the argument should be developed properly)

With specified complexity I mean that there are many possible ways in which amino acids can be organized, (many possible combinations) but only one or few combinations would produce self-replicating molecules/cells…………. For example there are many ways in which ink can be organized, but only few possible combinations would produce meaningful words and sentences therefore words and sentences have specified complexity

Potential falsifications

1 show that life doesn’t has this attribute of SC (perhaps life was simple in the past)

2 show that things can be SC and not be designed. (show that nature can produce SC)

So please acknowledge that I fulfilled your request, form the OP, if not, then what am I missing?

This is the sort of behavior that makes it unnecessary to provide you with any links

If you ever dare to provide any links, please do not send random links

I would apriciate if

1 you quote my specific words

2 provide the link

3 quote the portion of the source that contradicts / refutes what I said.

Any link that doesn’t follow these instructions will be ignored.

 

[leroy]

Too bad Dr. Frankenstein died in that fire, his testimony would be crucial for you.

But that’s ok because your straw man claim here is a fiction too.
There is no “ life from non- life” in science. What there is is a hypothesis that explains how inorganic molecules can convert to organic molecules in nature, and these are the building blocks of life.


Is the son of Dr. Frankenstein on call?

Sure, my claim is that once you have the building blocks, “nature” doesn’t organic them in to something that we would call life, (like a self-replicating molecule)

As an analogy Natrue can create ink, (there are many natural reactions that can produce ink) but nature cant organize ink in to letters and meaningful words and sentences. // therefore a paper with words and sentences would require a mind

Is the son of Dr. Frankenstein on call?

Frankenstein and the monster would be an example of intelligent design

 

[F1fan]

Sure, my claim is that once you have the building blocks, “nature” doesn’t organic them in to something that we would call life, (like a self-replicating molecule)

Ok. What experts in biology agree with your claim? I don’t care about your beliefs. I want to know what experts say. If you can’t find experts agreeing with you why would we care about your opinion?

As an analogy Natrue can create ink, (there are many natural reactions that can produce ink) but nature cant organize ink in to letters and meaningful words and sentences. // therefore a paper with words and sentences would require a mind

Analogies aren’t facts and a coherent explanation of the facts.

Frankenstein and the monster would be an example of intelligent design

Both fictional, and neither working as designed. Or are genetic defects part of the design by a higher power?

 

[gnostic]

Sure, my claim is that once you have the building blocks, “nature” doesn’t organic them in to something that we would call life, (like a self-replicating molecule)

As an analogy Natrue can create ink, (there are many natural reactions that can produce ink) but nature cant organize ink in to letters and meaningful words and sentences. // therefore a paper with words and sentences would require a mind

Your ink analogy would only indicate humans were the writers of letters, words and sentence, not by some invisible powerful supernatural entities called Designer, Creator or God, or that of spirits, angels, demons, fairies, etc.

Humans do exist, physically, but not any of these supernatural beings. If you think Designer or God are responsible for writings, then show some evidence that they either exist.

And it is octopuses, squids and other cephalopods that create ink naturally.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well that is easy, the discovery of a natural mechanism that can create life from none life, would refute ID.. (or the idea that life was created by an ID)

Would it?

I have no idea. You didn't provide any model that makes testable predictions.

If there was a natural path for the origins of life, does that then mean that *our* origin of life happened that way? Ice can form naturally also, but we can also create it artificially.

See, this is why it is important to first provide a falsifiable model.

What would falsify your claim that life came from none life naturally?

Do I make that claim?
I don't think I ever made that claim.

At best, I would say that a natural origin is the most plausible candidate and that that is why researchers in that particular field are looking for a natural process.

I would say that at this point, it is the only plausible candidate for the simple reason that there isn't any evidence of anything else.

We know chemistry exists. We know chemistry can create organic compounds. We know chemistry can create the building blocks of life.

The reason I assume a natural origin, is because I don't see other candidates.

Now.... if creationists (of any flavour) would actually be able to produce a reasonable, falsifiable, model for an unnatural origin...... that would be interesting. And that's what this thread literally is about.

But so far, none have done that.
All I ever see creationists do, is try to poke holes in evolution and other sciences. I never see them actually provide a positive case for their model. I don't even know what their model is. They don't seem to get much further then the proverbial "abracadabra".

Perhaps you would like to give it a go?

So it what way did I failed to meet your request in the OP?

Yes, very much so.

You didn't provide a model FOR your case.
Instead, you're just trying to poke holes in models that you feel are rivalling the one in your head, that you didn't provide.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I explained earlier, my hypothesis is that amino acids don’t naturally arrange in to self-replicating molecules,

See?

EXACTLY like I said in my previous post.
You don't actually offer a positive case FOR your model.
Instead, it's all about negative evidence against a model you don't agree with.

Let's just say ALL of science is incorrect.

Does that mean your religious assertions - whatever they are - are true by default?

Nope.

You can disprove evolution today and YOUR creationist case wouldn't have advanced an inch

 

[gnostic]

My hypothesis would be:

Life was caused by an intelligent designer

That’s not a hypothesis.

A hypothesis isn’t a one-liner.

A hypothesis required a fuller and more detail explanation.

Your one-liner is merely a baseless assertion....which is pretty pathetic, because it isn’t an explanation.

A hypothesis isn’t something that you just think of, dream of or make something up while getting high in acid trip.

A hypothesis still required preliminary observations of the phenomena, before you would even start writing up hypothesis.

The hypothesis should be based on the initial or preliminary observations, explain in details on

1. WHAT the phenomena is and
2. HOW the phenomena works.

Your phenomena is this “Intelligent Designer”. You haven’t observe this Designer.

If life was “caused” by this Designer, then you would need evidence of this “cause”, and since you assert that this cause is your Designer, then you would need physical evidence to show that this Designer exist...which you clearly left out below in your so-called “Evidence”:

Evidence:

Life has (and has always had) the attribute of specified complexity. / things that have this attribute are likely to be caused by a mind. (obviously this is an oversimplification, the argument should be developed properly)

With specified complexity I mean that there are many possible ways in which amino acids can be organized, (many possible combinations) but only one or few combinations would produce self-replicating molecules/cells…………. For example there are many ways in which ink can be organized, but only few possible combinations would produce meaningful words and sentences therefore words and sentences have specified complexity

Potential falsifications

1 show that life doesn’t has this attribute of SC (perhaps life was simple in the past)

2 show that things can be SC and not be designed. (show that nature can produce SC)

So please acknowledge that I fulfilled your request, form the OP, if not, then what am I missing?

Where are your evidence for the DESIGNER?

There are none, so basically you have no hypothesis, no evidence for your “cause” being the Designer, and, so, you really haven’t falsify anything at all in your ludicrous attempt at producing a hypothesis.

Your entire post is absurd, ignorant and dishonest.

If you had presented your post before peer reviewed, everyone would have laughed at your presentation of “hypothesis”.

Clearly you don’t know what a hypothesis, you don’t know what falsification is and you don’t know what evidence is.

All you have shown that your high school “prize” (gold metal) in science is nothing more than an empty boast of your superior intellect.

I see need no intellect at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok,

My hypothesis would be:

Life was caused by an intelligent designer

Evidence:

Life has (and has always had) the attribute of specified complexity. / things that have this attribute are likely to be caused by a mind. (obviously this is an oversimplification, the argument should be developed properly)

With specified complexity I mean that there are many possible ways in which amino acids can be organized, (many possible combinations) but only one or few combinations would produce self-replicating molecules/cells…………. For example there are many ways in which ink can be organized, but only few possible combinations would produce meaningful words and sentences therefore words and sentences have specified complexity

Potential falsifications

1 show that life doesn’t has this attribute of SC (perhaps life was simple in the past)

How are you going to test this? By the way, we can show that it was simpler in the past. I will let you think about that.

2 show that things can be SC and not be designed. (show that nature can produce SC)

So please acknowledge that I fulfilled your request, form the OP, if not, then what am I missing?

How are you going to test that? A proposed test by itself is worthless if you have no idea of how to test it. You seem to have forgotten that you can't just handwave a test into existence. Specified Complexity cannot even be properly defined the last time that I checked. This looks like another massive failure on your part. In fact I do seem to recall that if pinned down hard enough SC has joined the ranks of irreducible complexity. Just another bogus argument that creationists cannot support.

If you ever dare to provide any links, please do not send random links

I would apriciate if

1 you quote my specific words

2 provide the link

3 quote the portion of the source that contradicts / refutes what I said.

Any link that doesn’t follow these instructions will be ignored.

Nothing that you posted needs a link to be refuted. It is just gibberish and nonsense. You need to work on your tests before you can make any demands at all.

An argument that is posited using handwaves can be refuted by one. Bye bye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s not a hypothesis.

A hypothesis isn’t a one-liner.

A hypothesis required a fuller and more detail explanation.

Your one-liner is merely a baseless assertion....which is pretty pathetic, because it isn’t an explanation.

A hypothesis isn’t something that you just think of, dream of or make something up while getting high in acid trip.

A hypothesis still required preliminary observations of the phenomena, before you would even start writing up hypothesis.

The hypothesis should be based on the initial or preliminary observations, explain in details on

1. WHAT the phenomena is and
2. HOW the phenomena works.

Your phenomena is this “Intelligent Designer”. You haven’t observe this Designer.

If life was “caused” by this Designer, then you would need evidence of this “cause”, and since you assert that this cause is your Designer, then you would need physical evidence to show that this Designer exist...which you clearly left out below in your so-called “Evidence”:



Where are your evidence for the DESIGNER?

There are none, so basically you have no hypothesis, no evidence for your “cause” being the Designer, and, so, you really haven’t falsify anything at all in your ludicrous attempt at producing a hypothesis.

Your entire post is absurd, ignorant and dishonest.

If you had presented your post before peer reviewed, everyone would have laughed at your presentation of “hypothesis”.

Clearly you don’t know what a hypothesis, you don’t know what falsification is and you don’t know what evidence is.

All you have shown that your high school “prize” (gold metal) in science is nothing more than an empty boast of your superior intellect.

I see need no intellect at all.

Oh I love this sort of argument. It was handwaved in. The refutation is even quicker:

 

[leroy]

How are you going to test this? By the way, we can show that it was simpler in the past. I will let you think about that.



How are you going to test that? A proposed test by itself is worthless if you have no idea of how to test it. You seem to have forgotten that you can't just handwave a test into existence. Specified Complexity cannot even be properly defined the last time that I checked. This looks like another massive failure on your part. In fact I do seem to recall that if pinned down hard enough SC has joined the ranks of irreducible complexity. Just another bogus argument that creationists cannot support.



Nothing that you posted needs a link to be refuted. It is just gibberish and nonsense. You need to work on your tests before you can make any demands at all.

An argument that is posited using handwaves can be refuted by one. Bye bye.

Ok lets go steo by step

I succeded in providing a hypothesis and explain what would falsify it….agree?

As far as I underststood my burden is to

1 explain what I mean by SC (apparently my definition was not good enough)

2 explain how can I test if something is SC

Is there any burden that I have to deal with?