What would refute creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

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

I was not the one that corrected you on that. No wonder you are confused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

again the moderators deleted the comment where you did that

Nope. I saw it. @TagliatelliMonster would know if they did that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Hey!!! Were you the one that erased @TagliatelliMonster 's post where he expoained to @leroy how he was using an argument from ignorance? Some moderator supposedly deleted it

 

[Dan From Smithville]

*****Mod Post*****​

Please refrain from discussions regarding moderation for any reason. Discussion of moderation is a violation of Rule 2.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And it is not part of my case ether

Except that it is:

Specified complexity simply means that something is/has:

1 many parts or unitis, such that many combinations are possible according to the laws of nature

2 only 1 or few combinations have meaning or function

3 the laws of nature don’t have a tendency towards a combination with meaning or function.

"not knowing how nature can produce it", is literally part of your case.


And that point is the only reason why eyes have "SC" before Darwin, but not after Darwin explained how nature in fact CAN produce it.

As explained ad nauseum already.... It is literally part of the criteria of SC.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Yes. It seems I was correct all along.
SC falls and stands with knowing how things originate.
Not with the actual buildup / properties of things.

Before Darwin explained how eyes form naturally: eyes are SC
After Darwin explained it: eyes are not SC.

As per your very own acknowledgement in the post above.

Do you understand why your previous accusations are wrong?

No, they were spot on.

@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

Yes. Much appreciated. And by doing so, you proved my point.

Summary: things that are complex and not understood how they can occur naturally are SC and assumed to be designed. Until we find out how they can occur naturally.

The differentiator between SC and not SC, is thus knowing how they can occur naturally.
Argument from ignorance.

Thanks for playing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

SC doesn’t intent to demonstrate anything

Huh?

Then why did you bring it up in a thread that asks for creationist models that demonstrate that flavor of creationism?

If it doesn't demonstrate anything, then why are we talking about it?

 

[PureX]

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

It's designed to be a rock by the ordering principals of existence. And it fulfills a crucial purpose withing the whole of the existing universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's designed to be a rock by the ordering principals of existence. And it fulfills a crucial purpose withing the whole of the existing universe.

Here is how i understand it with this description of philosophical naturalism.
"... Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd. ..."
naturalism | philosophy

That is a form of ontological idealism without God, yet with a mental characteristic, namely the nature is orderly. To me that is in part psychology as projecting the human desire for order onto the world as a fact.
I.e. we define the world as orderly, therefore it is a fact, that is so and any results that question that is wrong.

 

[PureX]

DNA has a function in living things. There is nothing to indicate that it was designed with that function as a purpose.

It was designed by the need for that function. A need determined by the purpose of creating and maintaining life. The purpose of DNA is to create and maintain life forms. It's function is determined and defined by that purpose. If it did not fulfill that purpose, it would be dysfunctional, and would cease to exist. In fact, it would not have come to exist in the first place.

Things that have functions unrelated to a purpose can serve a purpose without being intended for that purpose.

"Intent" is speculation. The reason you all are so confused and disagreeable is that you are desperate to negate the idea of cognitive intent (and the possibility of God). But I am not posing any cognitive intention. I am simply stating the obvious. DNA exists to fulfill an existential function. Therefor, fulfilling that function is it's purpose. I stated nothing about any intent because I know nothing about any intent. Purpose may imply an intent to some people. And that is a reasonable implication. But that's all it is.

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.

Humans and their ability to intend have nothing whatever to do with this discussion. I am simply stating what is obvious to us about the nature of existence. Existence is organized, functional, and purposeful. Whatever implications you draw from that are up to you.

 

[PureX]

Here is how i understand it with this description of philosophical naturalism.
"... Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd. ..."
naturalism | philosophy

That is a form of ontological idealism without God, yet with a mental characteristic, namely the nature is orderly. To me that is in part psychology as projecting the human desire for order onto the world as a fact.
I.e. we define the world as orderly, therefore it is a fact, that is so and any results that question that is wrong.

Existence is an expression of order. Not chaos. Chaos cannot even exist without an order to exist within and to be recognized against. Our presumed ability to understand this order is just a bold presumption, as the complexity that has resulted is, so far, far beyond our ability to comprehend. And may well remain far beyond our ability to comprehend.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's designed to be a rock by the ordering principals of existence. And it fulfills a crucial purpose withing the whole of the existing universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But I am not posing any cognitive intention.

Then you shouldn't be using words that imply such.

 

[PureX]

The point.

The point is; order, function, and purpose. Not chance, or chaos.

 

[PureX]

Then you shouldn't be using words that imply such.

I'm using the words intended to represent the information being discussed. The implication is there. It's not my doing. And the fact that you are so determined to negate and ignore it that you can't accept proper English is not my problem. I don't know why you're so frightened by what is nothing more than an implication. The mystery is a mystery. That doesn't mean it's God. And I am not claiming that it's God. But denying the mystery by pretending existence is randomness is just dishonest and stupid, and unnecessary. Simply open your eyes and look and you can see that it's organized, functional, highly complex and purposeful. But that only brings up the questions of source and intent. It doesn't prove or solve a thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's designed to be a rock by the ordering principals of existence. And it fulfills a crucial purpose withing the whole of the existing universe.

That is what you believe. There is no evidence to indicate what you believe is an objective fact.

Show me the designer and the plan. Show me the criteria used to determine that rocks are crucial.

 

[PureX]

That is what you believe. There is no evidence to indicate what you believe is an objective fact.

Show me the designer and the plan. Show me the criteria used to determine that rocks are crucial.

It is a rock. That is an objective fact. It was created to be a rock by the same organizing forces and principals that it's existence as a rock have then fulfilled. That is an observable, logical fact. It has therefor fulfilled it's purpose within the context of the organizing forces and principals of existence. It is what it was created to be. It is fulfilling the purpose of it's creation. This is not an opinion, it's just a logical observation that you are refusing to accept.

That's your problem.

The rock remains what it is.

 

[gnostic]

It is a rock. That is an objective fact. It was created to be a rock by the same organizing forces and principals that it's existence as a rock have then fulfilled. That is an observable, logical fact. It has therefor fulfilled it's purpose within the context of the organizing forces and principals of existence. It is what it was created to be. It is fulfilling the purpose of it's creation. This is not an opinion, it's just a logical observation that you are refusing to accept.

Science focused on what the rocks are are, what type of rocks they are, and how they formed.

You speak of "It was created to be a rock by the same organizing forces and principals that it's existence as a rock have then fulfilled".

But a purpose its serve and fulfill?

What "forces"? The "purpose" of the rock? Or the "purpose" of some invisible and divine beings? "Purpose of it's creation"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a rock. That is an objective fact. It was created to be a rock by the same organizing forces and principals that it's existence as a rock have then fulfilled. That is an observable, logical fact. It has therefor fulfilled it's purpose within the context of the organizing forces and principals of existence. It is what it was created to be. It is fulfilling the purpose of it's creation. This is not an opinion, it's just a logical observation that you are refusing to accept.

That's your problem.

The rock remains what it is.

It's like your mind is totally dominated by a teleological fallacy.

You continue to speak as if there is intent behind everything that is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm using the words intended to represent the information being discussed. The implication is there. It's not my doing. And the fact that you are so determined to negate and ignore it that you can't accept proper English is not my problem.

Dude......... you're the one who is insisting on using two different words with different meaning as if they are synonymous.

I don't know why you're so frightened by what is nothing more than an implication

"frightened"?

I'm just pointing out your misuse of language.

That doesn't mean it's God. And I am not claiming that it's God.

I don't think I ever suggested otherwise. It's of no concern to the point.
And you have already said that that isn't what you mean and I accept your clarification.

I'm merely pointing out your misuse of 2 nouns that aren't synonyms.

The reason I do this, is precisely because people will misunderstand what you are trying to say because you are using your own personal definition of otherwise common words.

In fact, people think you DO claim/imply it's about god (or whatever other sentient entity) precisely because you are misusing those words.

If you would use them correctly, people wouldn't get confused as to what you are saying.
So if anything, I'm trying to help you to express yourself more clearly.

"frightened".... lol.



If so many people misunderstand you and in fact do think that you are making implications about gods and what-not, perhaps you should ask yourself why that is.

Any by now, you should know the answer to that question.