What would refute creationism?

[PureX]

Of course there can be a use without a purpose. You are conflating human made things with natural things. Purpose implies intent by attempting to conflate the two you are attempting to claim an underlying intent when you do not have evidence for any such thing.

No, you are insisting the purpose has to have some conceptualized source. It does not. Gravity fulfills a very important purpose within the event that we call the universe. In fact, it fulfills a multitude of them. But this does not require any cognitive intent that we are aware of. Nor does it exclude any. To claim it has no purpose is just stupid, and is a blind, automatic argument intended to negate even a possibility of cognitive intent by some mystery entity. But I am not proposing any cognitive mystery entities. I am simply pointing out that existence is ordered, not random. It is the expression of a process that results in extraordinary complexity and transcendent realms of possibility (life, cognition, and who knows what else).

I can't honestly even entertain these assertions of existence as an accident born of chaos and nothingness. It's both idiotic and completely unfounded, and it opposes even the most blatantly obvious observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you are insisting the purpose has to have some conceptualized source. It does not. Gravity fulfills a very important purpose within the event that we call the universe. In fact, it fulfills a multitude of them. But this does not require any cognitive intent that we are aware of. Nor does it exclude any. To claim it has no purpose is just stupid, and is a blind, automatic argument intended to negate even a possibility of cognitive intent by some mystery entity. But I am not proposing any cognitive mystery entities. I am simply pointing out that existence is ordered, not random. It is the expression of a process that results in extraordinary complexity and transcendent realms of possibility (life, cognition, and who knows what else).

I can't honestly even entertain these assertions of existence as an accident born of chaos and nothingness. It's both idiotic and completely unfounded, and it opposes even the most blatantly obvious observations.

Sorry, but you are using your own personal definition of purpose.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, but you are using your own personal definition of purpose.

No, I'm not. DNA clearly fulfills a purpose. And doing so is clearly why it exists: why it developed/emerged as a physical phenomenon. It is literally the physical embodiment of 'design'. There is no getting around this. And trying redefine words to make it go away isn't going to make it go away. And it's not just DNA that is a physical embodiment of design, it's quantum physics. And it's whatever the source is that is resulting in what we call quantum physics. Nature is design, and this design is what scientists are trying to study, and understand. If it wasn't there, they'd have nothing to find, or figure out. Their experiments would have no consistent results. Without design, there is no order, and without order, there is nothing but chaos. And chaos by itself can't even exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I'm not. DNA clearly fulfills a purpose. And doing so is clearly why it exists: why it developed/emerged as a physical phenomenon. It is literally the physical embodiment of 'design'. There is no getting around this. And trying redefine words to make it go away isn't going to make it go away. And it's not just DNA that is a physical embodiment of design, it's quantum physics. And it's whatever the source is that is resulting in what we call quantum physics. Nature is design, and this design is what scientists are trying to study, and understand. If it wasn't there, they'd have nothing to find, or figure out. Their experiments would have no consistent results. Without design, there is no order, and without order, there is nothing but chaos. And chaos by itself can't even exist.

Yes, you are. And DNA fulfills a function.

Your motive is clear.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which I did……………I provided a model and explain how can it be tested and falsified………..the model doesn’t fail just because you don’t understand SC






That is too complex for you to understand

1 first understand what SC

2 then Íll explain why the first life was SC

3 Then I will explain why SC implies design

We are at point 1 and we wont move to points 2 and 3 until you show that you understand SC


As an analogy

1 My model states that blue dots come from a blue pen

2 I saw a dot that really seems to be blue (based on the evidence we have)

3 darwin came and showed WITH NEW evidence that the dot is actually Red

Darwin falsified one of the premises, but the model could still be true

The Same with SC

1 The model states that SC comes from a mind

2 eyes seemed to be SC (based on the evidence that we have)

3 Darwin showed that eyes are not SC

Darwin falsified premise 2 but not the model (1) understand? Is this clear?









I personally don’t know if eye balls are SC or not, I simply don’t know enough about eyeballs in order to claim ether way.

If Darwin is correct then eye balls are not SC, because they would fail at point 3

"3 The small portion of possible combinations (in point 2) is as unlikely (or nearly as unlikely) as any other combination."

according to darwin, complex modern eyes are just a resoult of selective preassure, this selective pressure forced "ancient eyes" to become better and more complex

in other words usefull eyes are more likely to appear and survive that a random mess of useless organs.

"Specified complexity" has been dead in the water since Dembski first proposed it and couldn't back it up. It's based upon several logical fallacies, most of which you have exemplified in this thread.

 

[PureX]

Yes, you are. And DNA fulfills a function.

Your motive is clear.

There is no "functionality" without a purpose to define it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no "functionality" without a purpose to define it.

There is and I explained it clearly how there is (or rather 'could be') with the example of a doorstop.

But oh well.

You can keep on using those words as if they are synonyms, but all you will accomplish is doubling down on error.

 

[leroy]

That is not what an argument from ignorance is. Logic is not a skill that you seem to have right now. I think that it is your creationist fears that keep you from understanding simple concepts.

Well I made the same type of argument and it was rejected by @TagliatelliMonster supposedly because it was an argument from ignorance.

So why can’t I also use the same easy exist than him (rather than just admitting that the argument is good)

 

[leroy]

The
"we don't know how it can work another way" is not part of that case.

of it.

And it is not part of my case ether

 

[leroy]

l
Now please explain that.
What specifically changed?

Don't just say "there was new evidence". Instead, mention that evidence.
What was it that darwin said that made the eye NOT qualify as SC any more?



No, it's way to vague.
Get specific. Answer my question. Since you think I'm not understanding it, it will likely be easier to explain / understand if you go through it with the example of the eye step by step and with speciics.

1. WHY did the eye qualify as SC before Darwin?
2. WHAT specifically changed so that it no longer qualified as SC after Darwin?

WHAT specifically changed

1 before Darwin one would think that all possible combinations are equally likely

2 after darwin, we realized that combinations that are good for our survival are more likely

It´s an oversimplification but hopefully this is enough to move forward ……….. is SC now clear? Do you understand why your previous accusations are wrong?




@Subduction Zone
Note the way I clearly and unambiguously answered the question…………note how I quoted his specific words and answered clearly directly and unambiguously, hope to see this courtesy from you some day

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1 before Darwin one would think that all possible combinations are equally likely

2 after darwin, we realized that combinations that are good for our survival are more likely

It´s an oversimplification but hopefully this is enough to move forward ……….. is SC now clear? Do you understand why your previous accusations are wrong?




@Subduction Zone
Note the way I clearly and unambiguously answered the question…………note how I quoted his specific words and answered clearly directly and unambiguously, hope to see this courtesy from you some day

How do you propose to use a flawed, meaningless concept like specified complexity to demonstrate anything? Based on what I know of it, the concept remains undemonstrated mathematically. It is useless pretty much everywhere.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no "functionality" without a purpose to define it.

That's not true. A rock isn't designed to be a doorstop, but it can function as one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I'm not. DNA clearly fulfills a purpose. And doing so is clearly why it exists: why it developed/emerged as a physical phenomenon. It is literally the physical embodiment of 'design'. There is no getting around this. And trying redefine words to make it go away isn't going to make it go away. And it's not just DNA that is a physical embodiment of design, it's quantum physics. And it's whatever the source is that is resulting in what we call quantum physics. Nature is design, and this design is what scientists are trying to study, and understand. If it wasn't there, they'd have nothing to find, or figure out. Their experiments would have no consistent results. Without design, there is no order, and without order, there is nothing but chaos. And chaos by itself can't even exist.

DNA has a function in living things. There is nothing to indicate that it was designed with that function as a purpose. Things that have functions unrelated to a purpose can serve a purpose without being intended for that purpose.

Humans do things and create things with purpose. There are other animals that do this to a more limited degree. There is no indication that life is purposeful even if it functions or leads to something with purpose. That living things can produce purpose is not evidence that some unknown or undemonstrated entity can. It seems rather a circular argument to me.

 

[leroy]

"Specified complexity" has been dead in the water since Dembski first proposed it and couldn't back it up. It's based upon several logical fallacies, most of which you have exemplified in this thread.

I challenge to :

1 quote my actual words

2 explain why is that fallacious

Can you do that?????????? nooooooo because you are just a fanatic atheist who makes false and unsupported accusation just to sound smart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I made the same type of argument and it was rejected by @TagliatelliMonster supposedly because it was an argument from ignorance.

So why can’t I also use the same easy exist than him (rather than just admitting that the argument is good)

No you didn't. And that was explained to you too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I challenge to :

1 quote my actual words

2 explain why is that fallacious

Can you do that?????????? nooooooo because you are just a fanatic atheist who makes false and unsupported accusation just to sound smart.

Been there done that. Go back and reread the posts where he did so.

 

[leroy]

How do you propose to use a flawed, meaningless concept like specified complexity to demonstrate anything? Based on what I know of it, the concept remains undemonstrated mathematically. It is useless pretty much everywhere.

SC doesn’t intent to demonstrate anything, SC is just a word used to describe a pattern with some specific characteristics, you are free to use a different name if you want.

 

[leroy]

No you didn't. And that was explained to you too.

Again the moderators in this forum are conspiring againt you and apparently they erased the comment where you made such an explanation

 

[leroy]

Been there done that. Go back and reread the posts where he did so.

again the moderators deleted the comment where you did that

 

[Dan From Smithville]

SC doesn’t intent to demonstrate anything, SC is just a word used to describe a pattern with some specific characteristics, you are free to use a different name if you want.

SC or whatever you want to call it is useless and can't be used to demonstrate anything. Call nothing whatever you want, because relying on SC, nothing is what you got.