What would refute creationism?

[PureX]

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"?

the purpose of existence, itself.

Again, existence is organized, functional, complex and purposeful. We can see this with our own eyes and mind. It is not chaos, nor random happenstance. The universe is a design being implemented. Being fulfilled. Fulfilling itself. And every aspect of it is essential. Purposeful. The 'design' is embodied in the forces and principals that guide it's expression. We humans do not know what or how those are. But we can clearly see that everything 'obeys their dictates'. And we are trying to understand what those dictates are. And maybe how they came to be.

But so far we have no idea. Or very little idea what they are. And no idea how they occurred. But what we do know is that existence is not accidental, random, or chaotic. Chance does play a role. But it is a minimal role. Order is far more prominent in the existential design being expressed.

But it's all still a huge mystery to us. The possibilities far exceed our imagination.

 

[PureX]

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.

I have stated many times that I am posing no intent beyond the existential result. But you're so panick-stricken by the implication of divine intent that you just can't seem to let go of it, even though it's not being posed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have stated many times that I am posing no intent beyond the existential result. But you're so panick-stricken by the implication of divine intent that you just can't seem to let go of it, even though it's not being posed.

What would refute creationism?

You should read that post. It also serves as a reply to this one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, a rock just is. No design necessary. If you want to claim design then the burden of proof is on you.

 

[PureX]

No, a rock just is. No design necessary. If you want to claim design then the burden of proof is on you.

The rock is the proof, as it is the result of the organized and organizing forces that created it. (That "designed" it's creation.)

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok I will assume that you arrived at that conclusion based on an honest research and only after understanding the actual argument

 

[leroy]

Except that it is:



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


.

The 2 arguments are analogous

1 Based on every observation and any bit of evidence we have it seems to be the case that rings are annual, there is no known natural law that could produce 1000 rings in 1 year (in that specific context)

2 Based on every observation and any bit of evidence we have it seems to be the case that “building blocks” in a puddle, tend towards entropy, there is no known natural law that would organize the building blocks such that self-replicating molecules emerge.

So ether both are “arguments” from ignorance or none is

 

[leroy]

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.

You don’t need to know how eyes originate, in other to establish if it is SC, as I made it clear in my previous example, in this example even if eyes where created by an intelligent designer, they would not be SC.

All you need to know is the properties of the eyes and know how natural selection works

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.

Keep repeating your strawmman.

You are like a YEC that claims “if birds evolve from lizards, why is it that we never see a bird hatching from lizard´s egg.”

 

[leroy]

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?

SC is just the label that was assigned to patterns that have the specific characteristics that I mentioned earlier and that you keep straw manning

 

[Subduction Zone]

The rock is the proof, as it is the result of the organized and organizing forces that created it. (That "designed" it's creation.)

Sorry, but you are still trying to sneak unjustified terminology that implies an agency. We know the the rock formed. We do not know that it was "created".

Function is a neutral term. It neither supports or opposes agency. "Purpose" is a loaded term since it implies an agency that you do not have any evidence for. And creation implies agency. If you want to use "created" or "purpose" you take on an extra burden of proof to support the deity that you are trying to sneak into the discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

SC is just the label that was assigned to patterns that have the specific characteristics that I mentioned earlier and that you keep straw manning

How did he use a strawman argument?

When you use a term that you cannot properly define it is very difficult to claim that someone used a strawman argument on you.

 

[PureX]

Sorry, but you are still trying to sneak unjustified terminology that implies an agency. We know the the rock formed. We do not know that it was "created".

You really just can't let go of that inference, can you. You can't see anything BUT God in the gap.

We don't really know how the rock was created. We know SOME of how it was formed, but the most elemental aspects of the process are still a mystery. And may remain a mystery for a very long time.

Function is a neutral term. It neither supports or opposes agency.

They are ALL neutral terms as far as I am concerned. And I have posted nothing at all about agency. I have no idea what such "agency" would be, and neither does anyone else. Though you seem to be extraordinarily intent on opposing any hint of a possibility of it existing. To me, however, it's just part of the mystery. I can neither propose it nor oppose it.

"Purpose" is a loaded term since it implies an agency that you do not have any evidence for.

The "agency" is the existential process that created the result. It's so obvious and unencumbered that you can't see it.

And creation implies agency.

Creation is just the process by which something comes into being. Human reproduction is the creative process by which humans come into being. Stop loading every word up with this weird "agency" baggage. I agree that ultimately some sort of external agency may be implied, but it also may not be. That's a complete mystery to us. All I'm talking about is what is in front of us, and is obvious. I am not talking about any mysterious agencies beyond and apart from the existential obvious.

 

[leroy]

How did he use a strawman argument?

ohhh
look I will quote his acctual words

@TagliatelliMonster
SC falls and stands with knowing how things originate.

and then I will expalin why is he wrong...

.....No, you don’t need to know the origin of something in order to conclude that it is SC the label SC depends on the pattern not on the origin

If something has the particular pattern with the specific characteristics that I described then it is SC.

1 it has many parts and many possible combinations

2 only a small portion of combinations has a function or a meaning

3 combinations with function or meaning are not much more likely than any other combination

One can establish if something is 1 2 and 3 even if you dont now it´s origin
..........

Did you note what I did, I quote his specific words and explain why is he wrong, },,,,,, will I ever get this courtesy from you?

Will you ever support your claims or your accusations in this simple direct and clear way?........or should I expect “you are wrong because I say so” answers from you?






When you use a term that you cannot properly define it is very difficult to claim that someone used a strawman argument on you.[/QUOTE]

 

[leroy]

When you use a term that you cannot properly define.

Well the definition is clear for me, it is not my fault that you can´t understand a concept, a model is not wrong or invalid just because you don’t understand a concept,

If you tell me exactly what part of SC is not clear I would be happy to do my best and explain it to you

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really just can't let go of that inference, can you. You can't see anything BUT God in the gap.

You should really know better than that. Seriously, can't you do any better?

I am going to ignore the rest because after such a weak start it is only going to look like ignorant idiocy.

Start with your strongest claim. Not your weakest one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ohhh
look I will quote his acctual words




and then I will expalin why is he wrong...

.....No, you don’t need to know the origin of something in order to conclude that it is SC the label SC depends on the pattern not on the origin

If something has the particular pattern with the specific characteristics that I described then it is SC.

1 it has many parts and many possible combinations

2 only a small portion of combinations has a function or a meaning

3 combinations with function or meaning are not much more likely than any other combination

One can establish if something is 1 2 and 3 even if you dont now it´s origin
..........

Did you note what I did, I quote his specific words and explain why is he wrong, },,,,,, will I ever get this courtesy from you?

Will you ever support your claims or your accusations in this simple direct and clear way?........or should I expect “you are wrong because I say so” answers from you?






When you use a term that you cannot properly very difficult to claim that someone used a strawman argument on you.

Sorry but that is just pointless handwaving. If you want to claim a strawman you need to do better than that. You have not even properly defined SC yet. Until you do his argument was valid.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the definition is clear for me, it is not my fault that you can´t understand a concept, a model is not wrong or invalid just because you don’t understand a concept,

If you tell me exactly what part of SC is not clear I would be happy to do my best and explain it to you

No it isn't. Your failure when it came to the evolution of eyes was an excellent example. You are inconsistent so it can't be clear, that is if you are arguing honestly.

 

[leroy]

No it isn't. Your failure when it came to the evolution of eyes was an excellent example. You are inconsistent so it can't be clear, that is if you are arguing honestly.

OK then quote my actual words about the eye

Explain why do you think I failed,……………. Can you do that?..............no because you are just making random and unjustified accusations.

I don’t even know what you’re talking about, I don’t remember making any claim on the evolution of the eye, except for a few trivial truths here and there. (hence the importance of you quoting my actual words)

 

[leroy]

Sorry but that is just pointless handwaving. If you want to claim a strawman you need to do better than that. You have not even properly defined SC yet. Until you do his argument was valid.

Perhaps, however at least I had the courtesy of quoting his actual words and explain exactly on what point I think he is wrong.

I would like the same courtesy from your part………. Quote my actual words, expalin what part of the definition of SC is not clear, so that I can clarify the concept.

At this point all we have is “SC is not well defined because I say so”

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK then quote my actual words about the eye

Explain why do you think I failed,……………. Can you do that?..............no because you are just making random and unjustified accusations.

I don’t even know what you’re talking about, I don’t remember making any claim on the evolution of the eye, except for a few trivial truths here and there. (hence the importance of you quoting my actual words)

No, I am not replaying old losses of yours. If you did not understand the first time it is unlikely that you will understand a second time around. Do you remember your failure with the dating of the Earth?