• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What would refute creationism?

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes Darwin discovered/noticed that eyes have the property of following the laws natural selection and suggested that eyes could have come in to being through that mechanism.

Do you disagree with the statement above.?

Yes. The process that produce X, is not a "property" of X.

You are taking the ostrich defense to a whole new level here.

And once again, you are confirming that not knowing how something can come about, is a criteria of labeling something as SC.

Before Darwin, we didn’t know that eyes have this property of following natural selection

That's not a property of eyes.
That's just the mechanism of its origins.
You know...... the very thing that SC is supposed to be able to find out. :rolleyes:

Once again: SC = argument from ignorance.

You keep on confirming it.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Not necesairly

You keep confirming otherwise.
I asked you to list the criteria that made it valid to label eyes SC before darwin. You answer was:
- it's complex
- it seems unlikely.

Tell me: how do you assess the likelihood of something, if you don't know the mechanism(s) that can produce it?

:rolleyes:

The "it seems unlikely" is literally an appeal to ignorance concerning its origins.

The criteria is pattern with meaning or function that:

1 is complex (has many parts) and many possible combinations

2 few possible combinations have meaning of function

3 combinations with meaning and function are as unlikely as any other combination

Point 3 requires knowledge of the mechanism(s) that can produce the object. Otherwise you can't assess the likelihood of it.

The whole point of SC is supposed to be to be able to find out how it originated. Yet point 3 appeals to the ignorance of knowing how it can.

You keep on confirming that which you are hellbend on denying.

Knowing how it came about is not part of the criteria

Clearly it is.

, knowing it´s origin might help but it is not necessary

Finding out how it came about is the whole point of this thread and is supposed to be the point of your SC model you are proposing here.

And as explained multiple times now, in this post alone, part of your "criteria" is pointing out the ignorance of the origins.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
When?..........I don’t know, perhaps when you show evidence against what Dembski (or me) have said

Time and again I have pointed out the blatant use of the argument from ignorance.
The problem is that your ostrich defenses make you double down on your errors.

When you don't accept the evidence then you get to ignore it in your mind. But in reality the evidence is still there.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Here is a portion of the review by Jeffrey Shallit, on Dembski's "No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence", under the section of "1. Mathematical Difficulties":



That's only regarding to Dembski's incompetency with maths. Shallit go on to show other problems with Specified Complexity.

Here is the link from Shallit's review. And there are lot more to Shallit's criticism on Dembski's SC.

You brought up the origin of the eye, as one of the Intelligent Design's argument. Another criticism on Dembski maths, from Martin Nowak, in The Evolution Wars, page 6, which is Time's article:



Meaning: You cannot have mathematical equation on the origin of the eye, if you don't have the necessary data or "information" from the physical evidence. Such equations about the origin of the eye, is bogus.

Wow a clear and direct answer that is dangerous moderators might delete your post as they did with @Subduction Zone

I mostly agree with the critics, Demskies stuff is not supported by robust math, reply would be that this shouldn’t be a big of a deal, evolution by natural selection is not supported by robust math ether, for example you don’t know

1 how many mutations and which mutations are required to build an eye

2 what is the probability of getting such mutations

3 what is the probability that these mutations where selected by natural selection


So if the if lack of robust is not a deal breaker for evolution, why would it be a big of deal with ID?

Yes I admit that probabilities can´t be calculated with accuracy and I agree that there is not an objective spot where one can say “from this point on, it is too improbable and therefore it is CSI”

For example we can´t calculate the probabilities for a sentence to have been created as result of an explosion in a printer, but despite the fact that we can establish a specific probability we know it is too improbable to occur. Because even though there is a gray area where we cant tell is it is too improbable or not, a meaningful sentence is far beyond that gray area.

An other example , you can´t calculate the exact probability that we share the same ERVs with chimps in the same spot, but it is save to say that it could have not happened by chance.

So in summery

1 Yes I agree there is no robust math supporting ID (nor evolution)

2 the lack math is not a big of a deal

3 one can say that something is too improbable to have occurred by chance, even if you dont know the exact probability (ERVs woudl be an example)

please let me know whcih of these 3 points you deny, if you dont deny explicitly any of them, I will assume that you agree with them

I will also add that I am not defending the view that ID is a robust scientific model, I am arguing that it is a hypothesis supported by premises that are likely to be true.

You brought up the origin of the eye, as one of the Intelligent Design's argument. Another criticism on Dembski maths, from Martin Nowak, in The Evolution Wars, page 6, which is Time's article:
No, at least for the sake of this thread, I am granting that eyes are not SC and therefore not design.

When I talk about ID I am talking about the origin of life (the origin of the first self-replicating organic thing)
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
why do you think premise 1 is wrong?
How did you determine that, "SC is likely to be caused by a mind" ... ?

If you're saying something is "likely" then you would have had to do some math somewhere. Where is it?

And how did you determine that something, anything, is specifically complex? I think this thread demonstrates that the idea is at the very least, mathematically unsound.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
When did I agree with you on this point? And how do you think that your link helped you? You cannot even tell which point he tries to make.
You agreed with me on the claim that there are likely other mechanisms besides random variation and natural selection that contributed to the evolution of species,

Do you want me to go back and quote your actual words?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The problem is that no one knows exactly what you are trying to claim, /QUOTE]
How do you know that I am wrong then?

My claim is that there are other mechanisms that are being discussed in the literature, apart from natural selection and random variation


My source (even the abstract) shows that the statement is true
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Wow a clear and direct answer that is dangerous moderators might delete your post as they did with

I mostly agree with the critics, Demskies stuff is not supported by robust math, reply would be that this shouldn’t be a big of a deal, evolution by natural selection is not supported by robust math ether, for example you don’t know

1 how many mutations and which mutations are required to build an eye

2 what is the probability of getting such mutations

3 what is the probability that these mutations where selected by natural selection


So if the if lack of robust is not a deal breaker for evolution, why would it be a big of deal with ID?

Yes I admit that probabilities can´t be calculated with accuracy and I agree that there is not an objective spot where one can say “from this point on, it is too improbable and therefore it is CSI”

For example we can´t calculate the probabilities for a sentence to have been created as result of an explosion in a printer, but despite the fact that we can establish a specific probability we know it is too improbable to occur. Because even though there is a gray area where we cant tell is it is too improbable or not, a meaningful sentence is far beyond that gray area.

An other example , you can´t calculate the exact probability that we share the same ERVs with chimps in the same spot, but it is save to say that it could have not happened by chance.

So in summery

1 Yes I agree there is no robust math supporting ID (nor evolution)

2 the lack math is not a big of a deal

3 one can say that something is too improbable to have occurred by chance, even if you dont know the exact probability (ERVs woudl be an example)

please let me know whcih of these 3 points you deny, if you dont deny explicitly any of them, I will assume that you agree with them

I will also add that I am not defending the view that ID is a robust scientific model, I am arguing that it is a hypothesis supported by premises that are likely to be true.


No, at least for the sake of this thread, I am granting that eyes are not SC and therefore not design.

When I talk about ID I am talking about the origin of life (the origin of the first self-replicating organic thing)

Leroy.

No one made Dembski to include mathematical equations in his Specified Complexity.

Remember Jesus saying something along the line “those who lived by the sword, shall die by the sword”?

Dembski made the claims that he would provide equations to support SC model, so he only had himself to blame, when his equations failed, so does his model.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No. You are saying I am saying that. I am not. Never have. Show me posts where I have said this.
Ok I had the impression that you said that nothing would falsify “nature did it” I admit my mistake


So when it comes to abiogenesis, what would falsify “nature did it”?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Wow a clear and direct answer that is dangerous moderators might delete your post as they did with

I mostly agree with the critics, Demskies stuff is not supported by robust math, reply would be that this shouldn’t be a big of a deal, evolution by natural selection is not supported by robust math ether, for example you don’t know
So you agree that you are using a useless concept to argue the origin of life by an intelligent agent. That is something.
1 how many mutations and which mutations are required to build an eye
How is that important to establishing evolution?

For some traits, the number of mutations are known and there are even estimates of the timing of their occurrence.

It is useful information that can answer questions, but how is knowing this about eyes limiting to establishing the theory of evolution in populations?

It isn't really a math question is it?
2 what is the probability of getting such mutations
You are correct, it is not known. How does that lead to shaky ground for establishing natural evolutionary processes explaining changes in populations?
3 what is the probability that these mutations where selected by natural selection
If the mutations are established in a population then they were selected. I'm not sure this point has any meaning in claiming it as fuzzy math.

Yours is a very limp defense of whataboutism for a proposal developed by a mathematician.

So if the if lack of robust is not a deal breaker for evolution, why would it be a big of deal with ID?
I'm assuming you meant "robust math". Correct me if I am wrong.

Is there a lack of robust mathematics associated with the theory of evolution? What do your three criteria above say about your ability to answer this question?

With the theory of evolution there is certainly a robust body of evidence that is lacking in intelligent design. The quantity of evidence is much less so with the many hypotheses of abiogenesis, but it is still there. Where is the evidence for intelligent design?
Yes I admit that probabilities can´t be calculated with accuracy and I agree that there is not an objective spot where one can say “from this point on, it is too improbable and therefore it is CSI”
OK. Progress.
For example we can´t calculate the probabilities for a sentence to have been created as result of an explosion in a printer, but despite the fact that we can establish a specific probability we know it is too improbable to occur. Because even though there is a gray area where we cant tell is it is too improbable or not, a meaningful sentence is far beyond that gray area.
Your analogies don't make much sense. An explosion of French fries won't lead to meaningful sentences either. What does either yours or mine describe?
An other example , you can´t calculate the exact probability that we share the same ERVs with chimps in the same spot, but it is save to say that it could have not happened by chance.
The same sequences. The same locations on chromosomes. The existence in some genome lines and not others. Yes, the bet becomes highly probable in favor of using that as evidence for shared ancestry.
So in summery

1 Yes I agree there is no robust math supporting ID (nor evolution)

2 the lack math is not a big of a deal

3 one can say that something is too improbable to have occurred by chance, even if you dont know the exact probability (ERVs woudl be an example)

please let me know whcih of these 3 points you deny, if you dont deny explicitly any of them, I will assume that you agree with them
Your first point is just you conceding that Dembski's SC is useless on the dodgy math. Looks like everyone else was already on that page.

Clearly, the lack of robust math has lead you to conclude that Dembski's concept of SC is useless, so it is a big deal

I agree with point three, but I don't know how you think that helps you.
I will also add that I am not defending the view that ID is a robust scientific model, I am arguing that it is a hypothesis supported by premises that are likely to be true.


No, at least for the sake of this thread, I am granting that eyes are not SC and therefore not design.

When I talk about ID I am talking about the origin of life (the origin of the first self-replicating organic thing)
You've just conceded that Dembski's concept of SC is a useless concept. Without that and the other useless concept of irreducible complexity, as well as a dearth of evidence, you don't have an argument for intelligent design.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Leroy.

No one made Dembski to include mathematical equations in his Specified Complexity.

Remember Jesus saying something along the line “those who lived by the sword, shall die by the sword”?

Dembski made the claims that he would provide equations to support SC model, so he only had himself to blame, when his equations failed, so does his model.
Yea, so Dmeski try to support his claims with robust math and he failed……… so what? We both agree on that …. What is your point? t
 

gnostic

The Lost One
How do you know that I am wrong then?

My claim is that there are other mechanisms that are being discussed in the literature, apart from natural selection and random variation


My source (even the abstract) shows that the statement is true
Except that your link you gave me, doesn’t replace Natural Selection or Mutation. So what you call “support” your view, is flimsy.

And it certainly don’t support your position at all, on SC or ID.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok I had the impression that you said that nothing would falsify “nature did it” I admit my mistake


So when it comes to abiogenesis, what would falsify “nature did it”?
I don't know, but that isn't the question of this thread? Is my not knowing integral to establishing a creationism model?

What is non-natural evidence that cannot be explained by our knowledge of the natural? How would anyone know that evidence presented as "supernatural" doesn't have an explanation in the natural if it is beyond our present capability to examine properly?

Aren't you ultimately arguing for a gap and on ignorance?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You've just conceded that Dembski's concept of SC is a useless concept. Without that and the other useless concept of irreducible complexity, as well as a dearth of evidence, you don't have an argument for intelligent design.
No we agreed that SC is not grounded in robust math

That SC is a useless concept is your own personal unsupported claim
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Yea, so Dmeski try to support his claims with robust math and he failed……… so what? We both agree on that …. What is your point? t

It means that Specified Complexity is also a failure.

Specified Complexity is useless in maths, and it is even more useless in biology.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
How do you know that I am wrong then?

My claim is that there are other mechanisms that are being discussed in the literature, apart from natural selection and random variation


My source (even the abstract) shows that the statement is true
Has anyone been arguing that there are not other mechanisms driving evolution? Can you show me?

Known mechanisms of evolution other than natural selection are drift, gene flow, and sexual selection. But those are all supported with evidence and not imaginary.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
I don't know, but that isn't the question of this thread? Is my not knowing integral to establishing a creationism model?

What is non-natural evidence that cannot be explained by our knowledge of the natural? How would anyone know that evidence presented as "supernatural" doesn't have an explanation in the natural if it is beyond our present capability to examine properly?

Aren't you ultimately arguing for a gap and on ignorance?
I am just asking “what would falsify “nature did it” “?


If you answer is “I don’t know!” the that is ok _(end of discussion)
 
Top