What would refute creationism?

[Twilight Hue]

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.
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.
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.

Again. That was @Dan From Smithville that posted that. Here....
What would refute creationism?
Why are you putting my avatar name on something that I never posted. This is twice now.

 

[PureX]

Are you putting my avatar name on posts that were never written by me?

That was @gnostic. Not me. Here..What would refute creationism?

Oh, sorry. The computer remembers it automatically unless I change it.

I fixed them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Oh, sorry. The computer remembers it automatically.

The third as well.

I never wrote that.

I can see it as a mistake.

Just use preview function. It will help double check your work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

... Mmmm, .... given the level of our ignorance, I think we can presume that anything is possible. Once we step beyond the boundaries of "existence", there are no more boundaries.
DNA molecules developed because they could. They could, because that possibility was open. And it was open because there was a potential purpose for it to fulfill: i.e. life.

And existence itself is organized in such a way that it seeks to express as many possibilities as are open within it. "If it can happen it will happen." (But not all things can happen.)
Yes, it does imply agency. And intelligent agency at that. But so does everything in existence, because existence is organized, functional, purposeful, and very complex. I can't help you with that. It just is what it is. If there is agency of some sort involved we humans have no idea what that agency is.
Your issue with the implication of agency is your own problem. It's not my responsibility to deal with it, for you. I don't have a problem with it because I can let the mystery of some possible agency stand as it is. I am simply focused on and stating what is obvious regarding the nature of existence from the human perspective.
You just answered your own question. Life is not fully understood because life is complex beyond our comprehension (imagination). The universe is not fully understood by us because the universe is complex beyond our comprehension. Existence is not fully understood by us because existence is complex beyond our comprehension. And by now you should be recognizing the foolishness of imposing that "yet" caveat in there. Because implying that these will someday BE fully understood by us is quite the arrogant and unsubstantiated presumption.
It appears to me that you and some others here are so paranoid that there might actually BE an argument to be made for the existence of God that you are freaked out by my pointing out that the possibility does exist ... along with an infinite number of other possibilities.
Why is it that when I say that no one here can seem to grasp it?

To your last point, it may have something to do with your repeated claims that all that you conclude is obvious, when it isn't.

 

[PureX]

To your last point, it may have something to do with your repeated claims that all that you conclude is obvious, when it isn't.

Well, I can't open your eyes and mind for you. It IS obvious to most of us. And I can't help but notice that through all your protests, you have not once shown how my obvious observations are wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We all have to make the choices in our personal views that fit the best with ourselves.

I came from a religious background and have arrived at where I am through my own attempts at objective reason, logic and evidence.

I suppose it is a pet peeve of mine to see people declaring that they are the way, the truth and the light with such certainty when they cannot demonstrate that even to themselves.

Well, for the bold I see that in both some religious and some non-religious people.

 

[leroy]

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

"This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it"(Appeal to Ignorance.)


This is what I understand with fallacy of ignorance, do you have a different understanding? Why is your understanding right and mine wrong?

 

[leroy]

What makes you certain the limit is just to one or a few?

Well the fact that nobody has been able to quote a mistake (quote my actual words) strongly suggest that I have made very few mistakes (if any) in this thread.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

I find it interesting here that those who believe science explains the origins of life don't seem to first answer the fundamental dilemma...the origin of the big bang.
The principal of all science says, we cannot create or destroy matter and energy...
Conservation of mass - Wikipedia

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

that is a universal scientific law and yet out of the blue it gets conveniently sidelined...left in the shadows.

First resolve the dilemma of the origin of energy and matter because as I see it, the answer to this is a miracle...God. without a testable and repeatable result explaination, the foundation of the non christian scientific view is missing it's very anchor.

 

[gnostic]

Exactly what am I suppose y
To support? All I am saying is that maybe "random variation + NS" is not the main and most important cause for evolution..

Do you disagree with this claim ?

One wonders, why is it that you feel with the right to make assertions without supporting them?

If there was such thing as irony-meter, you would have broken the meter’s needle with your last question.

You are infamous for not supporting your assertions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it"(Appeal to Ignorance.)


This is what I understand with fallacy of ignorance, do you have a different understanding? Why is your understanding right and mine wrong?

You forgot that my argument was based upon evidence that supported it. And argument from ignorance occurs when one only has a lack of evidence that opposes it. If one can support one's ideas with positive evidence, as I clearly did, then it is not an argument from ignorance.

That is why people keep asking your for evidence that supports your claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the fact that nobody has been able to quote a mistake (quote my actual words) strongly suggest that I have made very few mistakes (if any) in this thread.

No. That is false. People do so regularly. I just did. You simply deny the refutations. And they are almost always very clear refutations that do not require an advanced degree to understand. Your only response is denial or you totally ignore the correction.

And once again that is why you cannot justly demand evidence. When one continually simply denies that person has lost that right. People may volunteer evidence to you, but do not take that as a concession on their part. It is often done for the lurkers, not for you since you will only go back to denial or ignoring the post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

... Mmmm, .... given the level of our ignorance, I think we can presume that anything is possible. Once we step beyond the boundaries of "existence", there are no more boundaries.

I have a feeling that that is not an appropriate assumption. But it does not really matter so I will not argue the point.

DNA molecules developed because they could. They could, because that possibility was open. And it was open because there was a potential purpose for it to fulfill: i.e. life.

Function, not purpose. Again, there are implications in "purpose" where function is neutral. Why do you have a problem with neutral terminology? It does not refute a God. In only forces those that believe to find proper evidence for their beliefs.

And existence itself is organized in such a way that it seeks to express as many possibilities as are open within it. "If it can happen it will happen." (But not all things can happen.)
Yes, it does imply agency. And intelligent agency at that. But so does everything in existence, because existence is organized, functional, purposeful, and very complex. I can't help you with that. It just is what it is. If there is agency of some sort involved we humans have no idea what that agency is.

"Organized"? Again you use a loaded term. How are you going to prove the agency that you keep trying to sneak into the argument?

Your issue with the implication of agency is your own problem. It's not my responsibility to deal with it, for you. I don't have a problem with it because I can let the mystery of some possible agency stand as it is. I am simply focused on and stating what is obvious regarding the nature of existence from the human perspective.
You just answered your own question. Life is not fully understood because life is complex beyond our comprehension (imagination). The universe is not fully understood by us because the universe is complex beyond our comprehension. Existence is not fully understood by us because existence is complex beyond our comprehension. And by now you should be recognizing the foolishness of imposing that "yet" caveat in there. Because implying that these will someday BE fully understood by us is quite the arrogant and unsubstantiated presumption.
It appears to me that you and some others here are so paranoid that there might actually BE an argument to be made for the existence of God that you are freaked out by my pointing out that the possibility does exist ... along with an infinite number of other possibilities.
Why is it that when I say that no one here can seem to grasp it?

No. When someone repeatedly uses poor debating techniques it indicates that they know that there is a severe lack of evidence for their beliefs. When you continue to try to use loaded terminology after being correct it only reinforces the belief of others that you have nothing at all.

By the way, do not assume that people cannot understand what you are trying to say here. It is merely unjustified.

Also you appear to be using a form of a black and white fallacy. Just because we do not know everything does not mean that we do not know something or even that we do not know enough to have a reasonable belief in how life started, how it evolved, etc.. It is ridiculous to claim that one must know everything. It is unreasonable since if we followed that way of thinking we would still be mere hunter gatherers.

 

[metis]

Puppies are tasty . . .

Like, er, um, cat?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like, er, um, cat?

Shh!! Wrong thread Wrong thread. And now you are going to get my housemate after me

 

[gnostic]

No, what I said is that based on the knowledge that we had before Darwin, it was reasonable to conclude that life (say the modern eye) is SC……………but new evidence came in and now the conclusion seems questionable.

In the same way, currently and based on the knowledge that we have today it seems that books are SC, but new discoveries could challenge this conclusion.

Specified Complexity don’t even qualify being a “hypothesis”, because SC isn’t falsifiable, isn’t testable, and certainly haven’t been tested.

Dembski keep asserting that “complexity” implies “design”, therefore “design” would point to a “Designer”, and yet he shown no evidence to support this A-to-B-to-C logic.

There needs to be evidence to support the interaction or relationship between “complexity” and “design”, which Dembski could never substantiated, which means relationships between “design” and “designer” is equally unsubstantiated.

And like Behe with Irreducible Complexity, the needs to use irrelevant analogy in SC.

Then Dembski would also claim that he would provide theoretical framework to SC with some equations. Is Dembski such an idiot that he would think no mathematicians would look at his maths?

His equations was trashed as it never prove anything, let alone that “complexity” would lead to “design”.

All Dembski have shown is that his so-called “explanation”, “logic” and “mathematical prowess” are nothing more than exercise of circular reasoning.

So not only Dembski is hopeless as scientist, he is also useless in logic and maths.

The question is why you would even bring up Specified Complexity in the first place, when it is clearly so much worse than Michael Behe’s Irreducible Complexity.

 

[gnostic]

And existence itself is organized in such a way that it seeks to express as many possibilities as are open within it. "If it can happen it will happen." (But not all things can happen.)

Yes, it does imply agency. And intelligent agency at that. But so does everything in existence, because existence is organized, functional, purposeful, and very complex. I can't help you with that. It just is what it is. If there is agency of some sort involved we humans have no idea what that agency is.

Your issue with the implication of agency is your own problem. It's not my responsibility to deal with it, for you. I don't have a problem with it because I can let the mystery of some possible agency stand as it is. I am simply focused on and stating what is obvious regarding the nature of existence from the human perspective.

But it is your problem, whenever you bring up “purpose” to your claim of some things being organized and designed.

By making such claims, then it is your responsibility to back up your such (repeated) claims.

You may not care there is agency exist or not, but if you are going to keep bringing up “purpose” to the table, then it is very much your busy to either clarify your position or support your position with you citing relevant sources or with own evidence and data.

Why do you think others here keep telling you support your claims?

They do so, because you keep making positive claims about “purpose” then the burden of proof will always falls upon such claimants.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it"(Appeal to Ignorance.)


This is what I understand with fallacy of ignorance, do you have a different understanding? Why is your understanding right and mine wrong?

Really? You did not understand your error? Once again, the argument from ignorance applies when one only has a lack of evidence against.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? I presented evidence that supported my claim. Therefore I was not merely saying "Well , dug gee Tennessee, there is no evidence against my beliefs". When one makes that claim that is often because they have made the error of using an unfalsifiable claim. To have evidence one needs a testable hypothesis in the first place.

Argument from Ignorance

'Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” '

<bolding mine>

My argument did not even refer to a claim that there was no evidence against it. My argument was once again based upon evidence. Your argument was solely based upon a lack of evidence again.

I can from all sorts of claims that have no evidence against them. And I predict that you would reject each and every one of them.

 

[PureX]

Function, not purpose. Again, there are implications in "purpose" where function is neutral. Why do you have a problem with neutral terminology?

It's all neutral to me. "Purpose" is the correct word to use because without it "function" becomes "dysfunction".

It does not refute a God. In only forces those that believe to find proper evidence for their beliefs.

No, it just allows you to presume to judge what is "proper" evidence. Everyone has evidence for whatever they 'believe in', for whatever that's worth.

"Organized"? Again you use a loaded term. How are you going to prove the agency that you keep trying to sneak into the argument?

It's not a "loaded" term except to you, because you think it implies something that you don't want implied. To me, it just describes what scientists are working so hard to understand: the organizing forces/principals of existence.

When someone repeatedly uses poor debating techniques it indicates that they know that there is a severe lack of evidence for their beliefs.

This is not a debate and I am not offering you any "beliefs". The words I'm using are the correct words and I am not responsible for whatever baggage you have associated with them. I have explained why I am choosing the words that I am. And instead of explaining why you think they're wrong, all you do is complain that they imply agency. But it's not the words that imply agency, it's the nature of existence that the words are describing. And I can't help you with your difficulties regarding that. I find no difficulty there, myself; only a mystery that I cannot resolve. But to me, that's no great difficulty. It's just the limitation that comes with being human.

By the way, do not assume that people cannot understand what you are trying to say here. It is merely unjustified.

It's not that you don't understand it, or that it's unjustified. It's that you don't want to acknowledge the obvious because it implies agency. And that's an implication that for some reason you seem driven to fight against.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's all neutral to me. "Purpose" is the correct word to use because without it "function" becomes "dysfunction".

No, function remains function. You are just making up lame excuses and playing word games. You should know that no one that you are trying to debate with is a beginner and we all recognize this strategy, When there is a choice between a neutral term and a biased one it is always better to go with the neutral one if one cannot support one's claims.

No, it just allows you to presume to judge what is "proper" evidence. Everyone has evidence for whatever they 'believe in', for whatever that's worth. What we rarely have is proof.
It's not a "loaded" term except to you, because you think it implies something that you don't want implied. To me, it just describes the what scientists are working so hard to understand: the organizing forces/principals of existence.

Wrong again. Since we are discussing science here there are clear and reasonable standards for evidence. In the sciences, and in just about all rational thought evidence has to have the ability to cut both ways. You are trying to avoid that by using concepts that are not falsifiable. They cannot have rational evidence for them.

This is not a debate and I am not offering you any "beliefs". The words I'm using are the correct words and I am not responsible for whatever baggage you have associated with them. I have explained why I am choosing the words that I am. And instead of explaining why you think they're wrong, all you do is complain that they imply agency. But it's not the words that imply agency, it's the nature of existence that the words are observing. And I can't help you with your difficulties regarding that. I find no difficulty there, personally; only a mystery that I cannot resolve. But to me, that's no great difficulty. It's just a limitation that comes with being human.

Of course you don't want it to be a debate because you would lose. But the thread is in the debate section for a very specific reason. One has to be able to support one's claims with proper evidence. In fact the idea of the thread was to help creationists get evidence for their beliefs if there could possibly be any.

It's not that you don't understand it, or that it's unjustified. It's that you don't want it to acknowledge the obvious because it implies agency. And that's an implication that for some reason you seem driven to fight against.

LOL! Oh my. No, we all understand what you are doing. You have not fooled anyone here.

But in some ways it looks as if you have admitted to being off topic. Let me go over this again. To have scientific evidence ,which is the correct sort of evidence to use in a scientific discussion or debate one must have a testable concept. It needs to be falsifiable. That is why the topic of the thread is "What would refute creationism?" In other words how could we reasonably test creationism? If one can find a reasonable test for it and it passes then there would be evidence for the concept.