• 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?

leroy

Well-Known Member
How so? Please don't use terms and phrases that you don't understand.
Your strawman seems to be

Leroy knows that information from a text comes from a mind, therefore he inferes (wrongly) that genetic information also come from a mind (because both are information)


That seemed to me to be your argument (which is a strawman).......if that is not your argument then I apoligice for misrepresenting your view
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
And I answered
You responded with the usual weak sauce.
1 show that the first life was not SC
Assumes its conclusions.
2 show that SC doesn't imply a Designer
Assumes its conclusion.
If you do 1 or 2 you would falsify my possition .
Self-refuting logical fallacies.

There is nothing circular in this argument, nobody is presupossing the existence of a Designer, nobody is appearing not gaps.......so none of your accusations is valid, nor has been supported.
LOL

As for the math
1 I already accepted and Granted the critics and already explained why I think those particular critics are not strong enough to trump the argument.
More weak sauce.
How much does something have to crumble before you decide to let go and move on?

Why don't you quote something from Landman or Rosenhouse that is in disagreement with anything that I have said ?
Why don't you know them? Look them up yourself.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You are strawmaning the analogy , the correct analogy is

1 text in a computer has meaning or function / DNA has meaning or function

2 there are many possible combination of letters / there are many possible combinations of building blocks

3 only a small portion of combinations would result in meaninfull words and sentences/ only a small portion of combinations of the building blocks would result in self replicating molecules

4 combinations with meaning are equally likely than any other combination/ combinations that result in self replicating molecules are equally likely than any other combination
Genomes are full of non-coding DNA that seems to replicate as well as the coding DNA does. Apparently, DNA doesn't have to code for anything to self-replicate.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Maybe, but the whole point of my comment was to show that one can tell if something is SC or not, even if you dont know the origin of that thing .


None of your comments is relevant for that particular point

Look, Leroy.

You were the one who brought up “probability” and “chance”, but it was very apparent to everyone you don’t understand Probability maths.

So you need to at least understand some of the basics, including what they are used for and how they being used. Especially if you are going to talk about it.

For you to say, it is not relevant, that’s BS, especially you were the one who brought it up in the first place.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your strawman seems to be

Leroy knows that information from a text comes from a mind, therefore he inferes (wrongly) that genetic information also come from a mind (because both are information)


That seemed to me to be your argument (which is a strawman).......if that is not your argument then I apoligice for misrepresenting your view
No, that appears to be Dembski's argument. That is why Demski fails, I really do not care what mistaken "logic" that you try to use. You were trying to defend Dembski, that explained why he was wrong and as result why you were wrong for trying to defend him.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You responded with the usual weak sauce.
Assumes its conclusions.
Assumes its conclusion.
Self-refuting logical fallacies.

LOL

More weak sauce.
How much does something have to crumble before you decide to let go and move on?

Why don't you know them? Look them up yourself.


You are just making random claims and firing random shots, when you quote my comments you are expected to reply to the point made in such comment.

I made the point that ID is falsifiable and provided 2 examples of things that would falsify

So ether agree and conclude that ID is falsifiable, or refute my arguments.

Any comment unrelated to the post that you are quoting will be ignored,

Why don't you know them?
If you think that they have an argument that refutes any of my claims, why wont you qoote such argument?

Wouldn’t you expect the same thing from me?............... if I ever claim ohhh but “john smith” refuted your argument, wouldn’t you expect me to do quote the argument?

Your dishonest “debate tactic” is:

1 I make an argument

2 you say that some guy refuted the argument

3 I ask for a quote (so that I can see the alleged refutation)

4 you refuse to provide such quote,


I won’t answer to any of your comment until you apologize for your dishonesty, or quote the alleged refutation from Landman or Rosenhouse

you have to quote my actual words and then quote the actual words from Landman or Rosenhouse that refute my claim
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I was wondering, do you think the inability to disprove means that your case is proven? Failing to prove that I do not cheat at cards does not make me a cheat.`
No, that appears to be Dembski's argument. That is why Demski fails, I really do not care what mistaken "logic" that you try to use. You were trying to defend Dembski, that explained why he was wrong and as result why you were wrong for trying to defend him.
It is no surprise to see intelligent design creationists arguments that don't indicate an extensive knowledge or awareness of the work of major contributors or how that work has fared. I try my best to keep up with the historical, current and even issues on the horizon with the science I am interested in. Part of the point of reading posts by you, @TagliatelliMonster, @gnostic and many others is to learn and see different perspectives on the material discussed. Many times, I learn about something here before I have read about it in the popular press or science journals. I don't see that from the creationist side. It is just different (or the same) iterations of the same old claims with the same old logical fallacies and often the same old tactics.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You are just making random claims and firing random shots, when you quote my comments you are expected to reply to the point made in such comment.

I made the point that ID is falsifiable and provided 2 examples of things that would falsify

So ether agree and conclude that ID is falsifiable, or refute my arguments.

Any comment unrelated to the post that you are quoting will be ignored,


If you think that they have an argument that refutes any of my claims, why wont you qoote such argument?

Wouldn’t you expect the same thing from me?............... if I ever claim ohhh but “john smith” refuted your argument, wouldn’t you expect me to do quote the argument?

Your dishonest “debate tactic” is:

1 I make an argument

2 you say that some guy refuted the argument

3 I ask for a quote (so that I can see the alleged refutation)

4 you refuse to provide such quote,


I won’t answer to any of your comment until you apologize for your dishonesty, or quote the alleged refutation from Landman or Rosenhouse

you have to quote my actual words and then quote the actual words from Landman or Rosenhouse that refute my claim
I'm done with you.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Genomes are full of non-coding DNA that seems to replicate as well as the coding DNA does. Apparently, DNA doesn't have to code for anything to self-replicate.
That is very interesting, however i never claimed the opposite, nor any of my arguments is dependent is dependent on that claim to be false

Stop making random arguments,
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, that appears to be Dembski's argument. That is why Demski fails, I really do not care what mistaken "logic" that you try to use. You were trying to defend Dembski, that explained why he was wrong and as result why you were wrong for trying to defend him.
Well I have never seen Demsky making that argument,

But if he ever made that argument, then he is wrong,
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Look, Leroy.

You were the one who brought up “probability” and “chance”, but it was very apparent to everyone you don’t understand Probability maths.

So you need to at least understand some of the basics, including what they are used for and how they being used. Especially if you are going to talk about it.

For you to say, it is not relevant, that’s BS, especially you were the one who brought it up in the first place.
but it was very apparent to everyone you don’t understand Probability maths.

How do you know that? I havent even elaborated any “probability” argument , and none of my argument depends on my ability to calculate probabilities.

Ok perhaps you can quote my actual comment and explain why did I failed,

The comment that you quoted deals with my claim on that “you don’t need to know the origin of something in order to know if it is SC or not”

Do you have anything to comment on that claim?..............if not why did you quote my comment?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Yes. The process that produce X, is not a "property" of X.

No but the “natural laws” that X follows is part of its properties, for example “floating in water” is a property of wood, ice, ships and other stuff.



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.

following natrual selection is a propertiy of the eyes, eyes follow the laws of natrual selection this is a propery of the eyes and woudl still be it´s property even if the originated by some other mechanism
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Point 3 requires knowledge of the mechanism(s) that can produce the object. Otherwise you can't assess the likelihood of it.
, point 3 requires knowledge on how the object reacts to natural laws , before Darwin we thought that eyes reacten in a certain way, after Darwin we discovered that eyes follow “natural selection”
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Why do you think it is correct?

I asked this multiple times. I never got an answer.
@SkepticThinker

This is heavy stuff, if you still don’t understand the concept of SC nor why is your objection on “origin” wrong, you have zero chance in understanding this

Remember

1 first understand what SC is

2 then I will show why SC implies a designer

3 then I will explain why the first life was SC

We are stuck at point 1 (which is the easy point)

So I will answer to your request, but I will not even bother to correct any objection based on a strawman


--

There are only 3 possible causes for the origin of something

1 chance

2 physical necessity

3 design

(or a combination of more than 1 option)


Something that is SC by definition makes 1 and 2 very unlikely, living design as the only alternative.

For example imagine that you are at a garden, and you notice that there are only red roses, (no white roses)

You might wonder what caused this pattern of only red roses

1 Chance: well if there are only 3 roses in the garden, then it could just be a coincidence, you could have white flowers too, but by chance alone roses happened to be red

2 physical necessity: maybe those roses only have genes for “red” maybe only red flowers survive (natural selection) maybe there is a chemical in the soil that prevents white flowers to flourish

3 design: the gardener likes red flowers, so he intentionally removes all white roses , or selective breathing etc.


In order for the pattern to be SC, you need many roses (not just 3) so chance becomes unlikely, and red and white have to be equally likely , so if you have something like natural selection that prevents white flowers then the pattern would be SC

Therefore the claim that SC can only come from a mind is almost true by definition
 

gnostic

The Lost One
How do you know that? I havent even elaborated any “probability” argument , and none of my argument depends on my ability to calculate probabilities.

That exactly the point as to what I have been saying to you, again and again, that whenever you bring up words like “probability”, “chance”, “likely”, “unlikely”, you are talking of PROBABILITY for your claim, except that you don’t have the probability calculated to support your uses of these words.

You keep talking about how Natural Selection and Mutations are “unlikely”, but you have shown no probability maths with the statistical data/analysis to disprove either.

BUT at the same time, you talk of Specified Complexity & Intelligent Design being “likely”, WHEN you again have no maths to support this claim.

What you don’t seem to understand that you cannot talk of chance and probability, by just making up as you go, without relying on the statistics of past occurrences (eg evidence), because PROBABILITY cannot do any calculations of likely vs unlikely without the numbers (data) supplied by the STATISTICS.

Statistics and Probability go hand in hand.

Yes, I know that you didn’t “even elaborated any “probability” argument , and none of my argument depends on my ability to calculate probabilities”.

You want to make all sorts of claims, but it is pretty clear to everyone you don’t have the evidence and you don’t have the maths skills to support your claims.

If you are not going to show the maths & the statistical data as to what is probable and what isn’t probable, then stop using those words.

Ok perhaps you can quote my actual comment and explain why did I failed,

The comment that you quoted deals with my claim on that “you don’t need to know the origin of something in order to know if it is SC or not”

Do you have anything to comment on that claim?..............if not why did you quote my comment?



Post 585:

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.


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)

Post 602

If you are willing to reject SC just because it is not supported by robust math, go ahead, would you reject all claims that lack robust mathematical support?............or do you make exceptins with stuff that that contradict your view?

... which of these points do you deny?
1 Yes I agree there is no robust math supporting ID (nor evolution by natrual selection)

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)

621:

But you don’t know the exact probability given the hot spots, nor the probability of preserving that genetic change, nor the probability of getting the viral infection in the first place, 3billion is also just an estimate

My point is that we don’t need to know the exact probabilities in order to conclude that “chance” is an absurd explanation,
The argument is still pretty solid evidence for common ancestry despite the lack of robust math and exact probability (agree?)

All 3 of these posts, demonstrate that you have no what you mean by “to have occurred by chance”, because if you did, you would and should know that maths are involved in the Probability.

And that you keep saying the maths “isn’t relevant”, then you don’t understand Probability at all.

Lastly, you keep saying the maths shouldn’t be relevant at all in Specified Complexity, but you keep forgetting that Dembski IS THE ONE SAYING THAT he have the equations and maths to support SC. So it is very relevant for us to be debating on Dembski’s maths.

But you have admitted that neither SC, nor ID, have “robust maths”.

But what you seemed to be incapable of grasping that maths cannot be “robust” anyway, if Dembski’s equations and maths are FLAWED or WRONG in the first place.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
@SkepticThinker

This is heavy stuff, if you still don’t understand the concept of SC nor why is your objection on “origin” wrong, you have zero chance in understanding this

Remember

1 first understand what SC is

2 then I will show why SC implies a designer

3 then I will explain why the first life was SC

We are stuck at point 1 (which is the easy point)

So I will answer to your request, but I will not even bother to correct any objection based on a strawman


--

There are only 3 possible causes for the origin of something

1 chance

2 physical necessity

3 design

(or a combination of more than 1 option)


Something that is SC by definition makes 1 and 2 very unlikely, living design as the only alternative.

For example imagine that you are at a garden, and you notice that there are only red roses, (no white roses)

You might wonder what caused this pattern of only red roses

1 Chance: well if there are only 3 roses in the garden, then it could just be a coincidence, you could have white flowers too, but by chance alone roses happened to be red

2 physical necessity: maybe those roses only have genes for “red” maybe only red flowers survive (natural selection) maybe there is a chemical in the soil that prevents white flowers to flourish

3 design: the gardener likes red flowers, so he intentionally removes all white roses , or selective breathing etc.


In order for the pattern to be SC, you need many roses (not just 3) so chance becomes unlikely, and red and white have to be equally likely , so if you have something like natural selection that prevents white flowers then the pattern would be SC

Therefore the claim that SC can only come from a mind is almost true by definition
Please stop talking down to me. I understand SC just fine.

It is widely viewed as a mathematically unsound concept. It has not garnered any serious attention, or gained any traction in the scientific community, since first presented.
And, it's based heavily on logical fallacies, which you've so aptly demonstrated in this very thread.
 
Last edited:

leroy

Well-Known Member
That exactly the point as to what I have been saying to you, again and again, that whenever you bring up words like “probability”, “chance”, “likely”, “unlikely”, you are talking of PROBABILITY for your claim, except that you don’t have the probability calculated to support your uses of these words.

I admit in advance that I don’t have robust math to corroborate my claims, for example I can show that it is very improbable to have a random sample of say 10,000 aminoaicds where all of them are left handed , but I can’t calculate the exact probability

The approximate probability would be 1 in 2 ^10,000 but this is not an exact number, because I have no knowledge of all the variables

So

Is this type of probability good enough for you, or do you only accept robust and exact math ?

1 this is good enough then I think I can show that abiogenesis is improbable

2 if you need robust math, and would only accept robust math, then one would wonder if you are willing to drop all the theories (including evolution) that are not supported by robust math




You keep talking about how Natural Selection and Mutations are “unlikely”, but you have shown no probability maths with the statistical data/analysis to disprove either.

No that doesn’t sound like me, I haven made such claims (not in this thread)

BUT at the same time, you talk of Specified Complexity & Intelligent Design being “likely”, WHEN you again have no maths to support this claim.

No, I don’t have robust maths and I don’t think I need robust maths




And that you keep saying the maths “isn’t relevant”, then you don’t understand Probability at all.


I didn’t say that math is irrelevant, I said that you don’t need the exact math’s in order to establish that something is improbable.

For example you cant calculate the exact probabilities of a monkey typing random letters in a key board, and end up with a coherent sentence with say 10 words and 50 letters. But you can say that such this in very, very improbable.


But you have admitted that neither SC, nor ID, have “robust maths”.

But what you seemed to be incapable of grasping that maths cannot be “robust” anyway, if Dembski’s equations and maths are FLAWED or WRONG in the first place.

but you haven’t shown that his maths are flawed, or wrong, all you (and you source) did was to show that his math are incomplete and don’t account to all the variables.



for example Imagne that I try to refute @TagliatelliMonster maths
About 3000-ish known ERV's in the genome.
About 3 billion potential insertion spots.

Sharing an ERV without common ancestry: 1 in 3000*3 billion.
Sharing 2 ERV's without common ancestry: 1 in (3000*3 billion)²
Sharing 3 ERV's without common ancestry: 1 in (3000*3 billion)³


and I write an easy showing that his maths are Incomplete, because he did considered hot spots, nor natural selection , nor the probability of getting a retrovirial infection in the first place

My criticism would be correct, but @tag conclusions would still be true, “it is very improbable for 2 organisms to share ERVs by chance” the only problem would be that he doesn’t have the exact maths, so one can´t say exactly what are the chances.


In other words, I dont claim that you or your source are factually wrong, just that they failed at refuting the conclusions or the central point of the argument,
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I admit in advance that I don’t have robust math to corroborate my claims, for example I can show that it is very improbable to have a random sample of say 10,000 aminoaicds where all of them are left handed , but I can’t calculate the exact probability

The approximate probability would be 1 in 2 ^10,000 but this is not an exact number, because I have no knowledge of all the variables

So

Is this type of probability good enough for you, or do you only accept robust and exact math ?

1 this is good enough then I think I can show that abiogenesis is improbable

2 if you need robust math, and would only accept robust math, then one would wonder if you are willing to drop all the theories (including evolution) that are not supported by robust math






No that doesn’t sound like me, I haven made such claims (not in this thread)



No, I don’t have robust maths and I don’t think I need robust maths







I didn’t say that math is irrelevant, I said that you don’t need the exact math’s in order to establish that something is improbable.

For example you cant calculate the exact probabilities of a monkey typing random letters in a key board, and end up with a coherent sentence with say 10 words and 50 letters. But you can say that such this in very, very improbable.




but you haven’t shown that his maths are flawed, or wrong, all you (and you source) did was to show that his math are incomplete and don’t account to all the variables.



for example Imagne that I try to refute @TagliatelliMonster maths
About 3000-ish known ERV's in the genome.
About 3 billion potential insertion spots.

Sharing an ERV without common ancestry: 1 in 3000*3 billion.
Sharing 2 ERV's without common ancestry: 1 in (3000*3 billion)²
Sharing 3 ERV's without common ancestry: 1 in (3000*3 billion)³


and I write an easy showing that his maths are Incomplete, because he did considered hot spots, nor natural selection , nor the probability of getting a retrovirial infection in the first place

My criticism would be correct, but @tag conclusions would still be true, “it is very improbable for 2 organisms to share ERVs by chance” the only problem would be that he doesn’t have the exact maths, so one can´t say exactly what are the chances.


In other words, I dont claim that you or your source are factually wrong, just that they failed at refuting the conclusions or the central point of the argument,
Why didn't you check to see if any of your supposed abiogenesis problems have been solved or not? And yes, when you make the sort of claims that you do you will need strong mathematical support.

None is the opposite of strong.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I admit in advance that I don’t have robust math to corroborate my claims, for example I can show that it is very improbable to have a random sample of say 10,000 aminoaicds where all of them are left handed , but I can’t calculate the exact probability

The approximate probability would be 1 in 2 ^10,000 but this is not an exact number, because I have no knowledge of all the variables

So

Is this type of probability good enough for you, or do you only accept robust and exact math ?

1 this is good enough then I think I can show that abiogenesis is improbable

2 if you need robust math, and would only accept robust math, then one would wonder if you are willing to drop all the theories (including evolution) that are not supported by robust math

You are still forgetting that the “maths” in Probability still require the “actual numbers” of OBERSEVED occurrences from the statistical data. Meaning you cannot do the Probability calculations without the figures from statistics.

Probability cannot work without the stats (or statistical data or statistical observations).

You need to show how you had derived “1 in 2 ^10,000”. Where are the stats?

If you cannot tell me where you got the number from, then the only recourse I have, is to assume you just made the “numbers” up.

If you making up some numbers, without the stats to back you up, then you are just making up any number that popped into your head. That’s not Probability.

I know that you are not a biologist or any other scientist from some other fields, so I don’t expect you to show the evidence or the data, but I do, or I would expect you to cite your sources, some scientific models or the research papers from scientists (eg biologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers), as to where they got the numbers or calculations from.

All you are showing - eg your “1 in 2 ^10,000” - that have no context, no stats or probability calculations, no sources.

Where did you get the numbers from? Where the stats? How and where did you derive it from?

If you invented that number from the top of your head, then you are basically just lying to us that it is probability.
 
Top