What would refute creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

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”

Sorry, but when you never acknowledge your failures you do not get to talk about "courtesy".

This is why you keep being put on "corrections only". I had some hope for you after you asked a very good question in the thread of yours that inspired this once, but you have gone back to your old habits.

 

[leroy]

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?

No I don’t remember you pointing to any failure to any of my comments related to the age of the earth…….. And your comment is certainly no there anymore

 

[leroy]

Sorry, but when you never acknowledge your failures you do not get to talk about "courtesy".

This is why you keep being put on "corrections only". I had some hope for you after you asked a very good question in the thread of yours that inspired this once, but you have gone back to your old habits.

How am I suppose to acknowledge my failures if I have no idea on what comments you are talking about?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I don’t remember you pointing to any failure to any of my comments related to the age of the earth…….. And your comment is certainly no there anymore

And there you have it. You either are not paying attention or not understanding anything written to you. You falsely claimed that it was an argument from ignorance on my part. I corrected you @TagliatelliMonster corrected you and you still were in denial. This is why you are on corrections only. If you want a discussion you need to acknowledge when you have been shown to be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How am I suppose to acknowledge my failures if I have no idea on what comments you are talking about?

Your failures appear to exist because you do not want to understand. I cannot help you in that regard. If you want to remain ignorant that is how you will remain.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It was designed by the need for that function.

A circular argument. Who designed it? Who determined the need? You can't show me any of that.

A need determined by the purpose of creating and maintaining life.

Circular speculation.

The purpose of DNA is to create and maintain life forms.

So DNA was the designer? Why doesn't DNA in dead things create life?

DNA functions as the molecule of inheritance in living things. It doesn't create. There is no evidence that it was designed with that function in mind.

It's function is determined and defined by that purpose.

More circular argument. 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.[/QUOTE]Sort of a circular belief system.

"Intent" is speculation.

Intent is what we have when we think up designs. You are in every way speculating on the intent of some entity that remains undemonstrated.

The reason you all are so confused and disagreeable

I am neither confused nor disagreeable in the negative sense you seem to be implying.

is that you are desperate to negate the idea of cognitive intent (and the possibility of God).

Even if the former were true, the latter cannot be for a Christian. It is interesting that you are trying to twist my response into an attack when it is not. And then attacking me, which you are.

I believe in God. I also recognize it as a belief on faith and that there is no objective evidence for me or you to make the claims you are making.

But I am not posing any cognitive intention. I am simply stating the obvious.

It isn't obvious. If it were, I wouldn't be pointing out that fact to you. DNA exists to fulfill an existential function. Therefor, fulfilling that function is it's purpose. [/QUOTE]I accept that you believe that, but stating it over and over is not showing me support for your claim.

I stated nothing about any intent because I know nothing about any intent.

But you are claiming intent. You claim purpose and purpose presupposes intent.

Purpose may imply an intent to some people. And that is a reasonable implication. But that's all it is.

Interesting way to hand wave off the fact that you imply intent after claiming you don't.

Humans and their ability to intend have nothing whatever to do with this discussion.

Sure they do. When we design something there is intent and evidence of intent. In nature we do not see either of those.

I am simply stating what is obvious to us about the nature of existence.

Belief and not obvious or, again, we would not be having this discussion.

Existence is organized, functional, and purposeful.

I agree with the former two claims, but the latter is just your belief that I am confident you will not be able to substantiate.

Whatever implications you draw from that are up to you.

I agree. I have stated what I have gotten from your posts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is a rock. That is an objective fact.

No argument. I agree with you on that.

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

Then demonstrate that.

That is an observable, logical fact.

No it is not.

It has therefor fulfilled it's purpose within the context of the organizing forces and principals of existence.

An empty declaration with nothing to back it up.

It is what it was created to be. It is fulfilling the purpose of it's creation.

Then you should have no trouble showing all of us here the evidence to support your claims reflect objective reality.

This is not an opinion,

It is.

it's just a logical observation that you are refusing to accept.

It isn't. If it were, you could show us. My dispute with your claims is based on the fact that they are your opinion and you have not and I am confident cannot demonstrate them to be more than opinion.

That's your problem.

I don't have a problem. But thanks for trying to twist this to a confrontational level. To me that speaks volumes.

The rock remains what it is.

A rock, with no obvious or logical purpose, no evidence of design, but with a multitude of functions based on the context.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

You would be correct.

 

[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.

Opinion. Show me evidence. Demonstrate the factual nature of your claim.

 

[gnostic]

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

Once again, I will ask:

What FORCES that supposedly “organize”, “design” and “create” those rocks?

If the “forces” are not some entities, like god, then what exactly are you proposing.

You needs to understand that most of your posts/replies are rather vague in the detail. That’s why I have been asking questions.

And you keep saying “purpose”, which could means a lot of things, depending on context, and you weren’t very clear on what you meant.

The problems with using this word (purpose), it could means (A) the reason for something being done, or (B) it could means “motive” or “motivation”, and motive often leads to “intent”, hence intention”.

And yet, you responded to @TagliatelliMonster that are “no intent”:

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.

You are using words that are misleading or could be misinterpreted.

 

[leroy]

And there you have it. You either are not paying attention or not understanding anything written to you. You falsely claimed that it was an argument from ignorance on my part. I corrected you @TagliatelliMonster corrected you and you still were in denial. This is why you are on corrections only. If you want a discussion you need to acknowledge when you have been shown to be wrong.

I was being sarcastic , I was refuting your argument using " @TagliatelliMonster logic "in reality I don't think that you are making an argument from ignorance.

See once again you wongly thought that I afirm something when I don't

 

[PureX]

So DNA was the designer? Why doesn't DNA in dead things create life?

Oh, come on. That's just stupid. DNA is the design mechanism. It is literally the physical embodiment of design. Just as gravity is an important existential design mechanism. And heat. And the laws of motion. And all of these design mechanisms exist to fulfill their existential purpose. It's not a "circular argument", it's a self-evident observation.

DNA functions as the molecule of inheritance in living things. It doesn't create. There is no evidence that it was designed with that function in mind.

There is no "mind" to it (that any of us are aware of). DNA developed to fulfill a possibility that was created by the rest of the existential design mechanisms. The same way life forms develop to take advantage of the possibilities that the environment created for them.

I believe in God. I also recognize it as a belief on faith and that there is no objective evidence for me or you to make the claims you are making.

But there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a creator God. It's everywhere you look; in the form of existential design, purpose, and complexity. But all it is, is evidence. It is not proof. Which is why if you are going to accept it as proof, you're going to have to do so as an act of faith. And if you are going to choose to presume there is no God, you're going to have to do that as an act of faith, as well. Because evidence is not proof. And neither is the lack of "sufficient" evidence. So what we choose to believe to be true, about God, we are choosing to believe based on faith, not onthe knowledge provided by any evidence or the lack thereof. In spite of the many foolish comments I read to the contrary.

 

[PureX]

No argument. I agree with you on that.
Then demonstrate that.

It's self-evident, as there is no other known possibility except "magic". And the possibility being offered is being demonstrated all the time as the world constantly changes according to the designs of these creative existential forces (like gravity, heat, motion, and many, many others). While we have no known examples of any alternative 'magical' creative occurrences.

 

[PureX]

Once again, I will ask:

What FORCES that supposedly “organize”, “design” and “create” those rocks?

And once again I will state that we do not know beyond the obvious forces of gravity, heat, motion, and the many atomic and quantum interactions involved in generating these creative forces. Your objection here seems to be that if I am not omniscient, I can't reasonably observe and state the obvious. (Because you don't want to accept the obvious.)

If the “forces” are not some entities, like god, then what exactly are you proposing.

I am not proposing anything. I am simply stating the obvious. That existence is an expression of design everywhere we look. It is organized, functional, and purposeful, and very complex. It's even capable of transcending it's own design limitations. Which is quite amazing! Like a computer becoming sentient.

The problem is that if you and some others here acknowledge this obvious characterization of existence, it implies in your minds that there must be an ultimate "designer" of some sort, and you don't want to acknowledge that implication, AT ALL. So you're fighting tooth and nail to ignore and dispute the obvious. While I am not proposing any ultimate designers. Of any kind. I am just stating the obvious. And letting the mystery of it, be.

You needs to understand that most of your posts/replies are rather vague in the detail. That’s why I have been asking questions.

There is nothing vague about them. They are as obvious as obvious can be. DNA is the physical embodiment of design. It is literally design written in a molecular form. And it developed to fulfill the very function that it is fulfilling. As is it's ongoing purpose within existence. And it developed because that possibility was available to happen, and the overall design that existence expresses seeks to explore all available possibilities. It's all quite astonishing, really, and is the opposite of some random, accidental vision of existence that some of you here insist on holding to. Which is why some of you are having so much difficulty accepting the obvious. But it is what it is. And it is quite obvious. And I'm sorry if that flies in the face of this delusion some of you hold about a random, accidental existence. That is not the existence you are living in. The existence you are living in is organized, functional, purposeful, very complex, and even transcendent.

Time to wake up and smell the 'awesomeness'!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was being sarcastic , I was refuting your argument using " @TagliatelliMonster logic "in reality I don't think that you are making an argument from ignorance.

See once again you wongly thought that I afirm something when I don't

No, you failed at that too. You only demonstrated that you did not understand what an argument from ignorance fallacy is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's self-evident, as there is no other known possibility except "magic". And the possibility being offered is being demonstrated all the time as the world constantly changes according to the designs of these creative existential forces (like gravity, heat, motion, and many, many others). While we have no known examples of any alternative 'magical' creative occurrences.

Really? It is self evidence? Isn't it funny how that is always the claim of the side without any evidence. If it was self evidence others would agree with you. If it was self evident you could still find evidence for your beliefs since that is what "self evident" really means. Self evident does not mean "I really believe this super super hard, but I can't find any evidence to support me".

 

[PureX]

Really? It is self evidence?

The scientific process is evidence enough. As it could not function without an organized, functional, purposeful, existence to investigate. The fact that you want to argue about this is what's absurd.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The scientific process is evidence enough. As it could not function without an organized, functional, purposeful, existence to investigate. The fact that you want to argue about this is what's absurd.

Evidence for what and why?

I don't go around saying "science disproves God" but it appears that you are making the error of claiming that it does the opposite. That too would be an error.

 

[PureX]

Evidence for what and why?

I don't go around saying "science disproves God" but it appears that you are making the error of claiming that it does the opposite. That too would be an error.

I have not posted anything about God except that we don't know anything about God.

I am simply pointing out the glaringly obvious: that existence is organized, functional, purposeful, and complex beyond our comprehension.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's self-evident, as there is no other known possibility except "magic". And the possibility being offered is being demonstrated all the time as the world constantly changes according to the designs of these creative existential forces (like gravity, heat, motion, and many, many others). While we have no known examples of any alternative 'magical' creative occurrences.

So nothing more than empty declarations.