What would refute creationism?

[leroy]

Doesn't your claim it isn't an argument from ignorance require you to demonstrate that it isn't?

Not being fully conversant with the concepts doesn't seem to have prevented you from launching a campaign to support them? I'm not sure that places you in the best position to be qualifying the work of others on here.

Witch I did, the truth of my claim is dependent on having positive knowledge about the roses

 

[leroy]

Are you saying that in order to show someone that their directions to New York aren't good directions to New York, they also have to present directions to New York or they haven't shown bad directions are wrong? That doesn't make any sense that I can see.

I don't see that telling someone starting from Georgia that they don't have to go to Denver and then Los Angeles to get to New York is wrong even if I don't provide them with my version of directions.

No I am not saying that.

Borrowing from your analogy, I can establish that you can´t walk from LA to New York city in 1 day, even if I don’t have the exact math, like the exact speed in which one can walk, or the exact distance considering the mountains valleys, etc.

 

[leroy]

If you can't use SC to determine a design until you know that something was designed, why don't you use whatever it is that you used to determine design so that you could apply SC?

I didnt understand the question

 

[leroy]

If SC can only be applied in instances where a natural origin has not been determined, isn't that just an argument from ignorance? Since there is a probability for a natural origin for the thing of undetermined origin? Aren't you just saying pick design to fill the gap since that is the one you like, but apparently can not give good reason to conclude it otherwise? It sounds like you are concluding some sort of default position without giving sound reason why the default succeeds over random chance.

SC simply means that the pattern has those 4 specific characteristics.

1 if the object lacks any of these characteristics then it is not SC (even if it is design)

2 if the object has those 4 characteristics, then it is SC (even if it is not design) I would argue that it is unlikely, but it is logically possible to have something non design that is SC

3 if there are gaps in the knowledge (as they always are) , then you need to provide good reasons to fill in those gaps with SC, SC is not the default answer, you don’t automatically conclude SC when there is a gap,

Is this clear?..........

 

[leroy]

Is it real
Once again, you keep resisting the point and once again you contradict yourself.
There is no escaping this. You need to know about the processes and mechanisms to determine the likelihood. So if the likelihood is part of the criteria......................................................................

Yes you need to know about the process and the mechanism, ……. But you don’t need prior knowledge of their origin

Given you have no idea about the processes that produce roses and which determines the colors of roses, how do you plan on determining the likelihood of "only red roses"?

1 Take a random sample of roses or seeds, allow them to reproduce and see if both white and red roses emerge

2 sequencence the genome of the roses and see if there are genes that code for white


You don’t need to know the origin a priori in order to do any of those experiments………..

 

[leroy]

Point 3 contradicts the premise of not knowing about the processes that produce red and white roses in which circumstances.


Derp.



You do. Not knowing about the processes that produce roses of which color under which circumstance, makes it impossible to determine the likelihood of ending up with only one color.


You keep failing to understand that having to appeal to "likelihood" as a criteria, makes the whole thing worthless for its supposed purpose.

It means you end up with a model that is guaranteed to produce false positives. And when it doesn't, it's just lucky. This is not a reliable method of detecting design.

1 can you count the flowers? Yes (at least with a high degree of certainty)

2 can you tell if all the flowers are red Yes (at least with a high degree of certainty)

3 can you test if the flowers or the seeds have “genes” for white ? yes (at least with a high degree of certainty) can you test if white flowers are equally likely to survive? yes (at least with a high degree of certainty)

You don’t need to know the origin of flowers a priori in order to do these tests,
It doesn’t matter what your believes about the origin of the flowers is, peole with different views and different biases, can do the same tests and get the same results.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans say the evolution...cooling of earths body heavens mass was replaced and also healed.

Body returned Gods cooling greatest best heavens of biologies life support.

Which is cooler gases.
Which is greater pressures above.
Which is water held around over us. Our life body biology mainly water.

Pretty basic we know why we healed from first technology of men after the ice age. Old confess of Sion Moses testimonial.

B a s T.. ards. No doubt the Egyptians who caused CAT astrophe...heavens above.

Today the same titled inhumane greedy liars say I theory when I don't exist nor animals nor nature...don't forget and nor does your evil machine.

For single cells.

You ask them why?

I want that advice to be electricity.

Why?

I'm greedy.

Okay..you don't want the origin single cell yourselves?

Yes. Yet he says it's where everything else began.

Why?

I'm a machine I need life returned as his man's mind bio his body man bio theories on behalf of a machine.

Oh you want everything destroyed then?

My other science brother said yes Satanists want life burnt to death. It's why we named them Satanists who don't believe in the human legal position earth is God only.

Legal = God..not a God is a God.

God by identification every one created presence as its highest owned position in a humans presence.

No theorising status.

When humans inventors say a God as a man invented owned the first cell that he only wants to be electricity.

As he knows he and his machine aren't there in his thesis of what as a man with machine... I want.

Ignored why legal said God was the legal entity and no thesis by a human owned it.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans say the evolution...cooling of earths body heavens mass was replaced and also healed.

Body returned Gods cooling greatest best heavens of biologies life support.

Which is cooler gases.
Which is greater pressures above.
Which is water held around over us. Our life body biology mainly water.

Pretty basic we know why we healed from first technology of men after the ice age. Old confess of Sion Moses testimonial.

B a s T.. ards. No doubt the Egyptians who caused CAT astrophe...heavens above.

Today the same titled inhumane greedy liars say I theory when I don't exist nor animals nor nature...don't forget and nor does your evil machine.

For single cells.

You ask them why?

I want that advice to be electricity.

Why?

I'm greedy.

Okay..you don't want the origin single cell yourselves?

Yes. Yet he says it's where everything else began.

Why?

I'm a machine I need life returned as his man's mind bio his body man bio theories on behalf of a machine.

Oh you want everything destroyed then?

My other science brother said yes Satanists want life burnt to death. It's why we named them Satanists who don't believe in the human legal position earth is God only.

Legal = God..not a God is a God.

God by identification every one created presence as its highest owned position in a humans presence.

No theorising status.

When humans inventors say a God as a man invented owned the first cell that he only wants to be electricity.

As he knows he and his machine aren't there in his thesis of what as a man with machine... I want.

Ignored why legal said God was the legal entity and no thesis by a human owned it.

My brother told me his realisation brothers evil consciousness.

Heard like I do now

Said no beast false icon idol allowed.

He knew our brothers intent was hidden behind false idols fake symbolism.

So he built a statue of his brothers tortured death. The add cross of science.

Wood carbon themes.

To look at every day by claim look what you caused man of science false language false animal beast science theories.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ohhh

“John Smith” proved that

But I wont provide any source, because I want to mimic your debate tactics

I was just mimicking your technique. I haven't seen your present any sources like I did, unless you can show that "John Smith" is a real person that has shown that the math associated with the theory of evolution is flawed like that of Dembski. Can you do that? Can you show me?

You should know the names of the mathematicians that have shown Dembski's math to be flawed. You should know their work. Why you do not is a testament to how little you really know your subject.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you! I was trying to think of a way to say that and you just nailed it.

Thank you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Witch I did, the truth of my claim is dependent on having positive knowledge about the roses

You haven't done anything to refute the fact that Dembski's use of SC is an argument from ignorance. In fact, you continually reinforce that fact and then double down on your errors. Nothing you have provided smells like roses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No I am not saying that.

Borrowing from your analogy, I can establish that you can´t walk from LA to New York city in 1 day, even if I don’t have the exact math, like the exact speed in which one can walk, or the exact distance considering the mountains valleys, etc.

That is hardly the same thing as the flawed math present in Dembski's failed concept of using SC to determine design.

You should be able to come up with a fairly good mathematical model for a walk from LA to New York or vice versa. Your flawed data or poor estimates are not the fault of the model, nor do they indicate it is flawed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didnt understand the question

I know.

Since Dembski's SC requires that you know something is designed in order to use SC to show design, then why not use the thing that shows design leading up to SC and throw SC out completely.

The logic of Dembski's SC is an argument from ignorance. I understand that you can't accept that, but that doesn't make it any less correct.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didnt understand the question

Uhu.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes you need to know about the process and the mechanism, ……. But you don’t need prior knowledge of their origin

/facepalm

The processes and mechanisms, explain the origins (or at least potential origins) of the thing.

1 Take a random sample of roses or seeds, allow them to reproduce and see if both white and red roses emerge

2 sequencence the genome of the roses and see if there are genes that code for white

You don’t need to know the origin a priori in order to do any of those experiments………..

Neither would inform you of the likelihood of only red roses in a certain area.
Why would your random sample be representative?
Why would the presence of genes coding for white exclude animals that eat all the white ones?

Another thing your nonsense again reveals, is the argument from ignorance.

You can't find a natural explanation, so you will just assume design instead.

You aren't presenting a positive case FOR design.
Instead, you are just pointing out ignorance of "why only red" and then assume design on that basis.
This is the problem with including "natural likelihood" in the list of criteria. Especially when it is the "make or break" point of the criteria.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave up on @leroy in his last tirade. In fact if I had a shovel handy I would have given it to him. He was digging such a nice hole for himself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1 can you count the flowers? Yes (at least with a high degree of certainty)

2 can you tell if all the flowers are red Yes (at least with a high degree of certainty)

3 can you test if the flowers or the seeds have “genes” for white ? yes (at least with a high degree of certainty) can you test if white flowers are equally likely to survive? yes (at least with a high degree of certainty)

You don’t need to know the origin of flowers a priori in order to do these tests,
It doesn’t matter what your believes about the origin of the flowers is, peole with different views and different biases, can do the same tests and get the same results.

Again, all you are doing is presenting a negative case against natural origins.
You aren't presenting a positive case FOR design.
The result of this is.... yep: an argument from ignorance.

I'm sorry that you can't seem to comprehend the difference.

 

[Polymath257]

1 Amino acids can be ether right handed or left handed

2 it is equally to have ether one by chance

Therefore a random set of amino acids is expected to have around 50% left handed and 50% right handed amino acids.


The probability of having just left handed aminoacids can be calculated by dividing 1 / 2 ^n

n=the number of aminoacids.

If you have 100 amino acids then n=100

You also need to assume that the individual amino acids are independent as to whether they are right or left.

And, in practice, the assumption of equal probability AND the assumption of independence are BOTH wrong.

And that invalidates the whole calculation.

If the individual events are NOT independent, you cannot even estimate the end probability by a simple multiplication. The result of doing such can be many orders of magnitude off from the correct value.

 

[Polymath257]

“Not knowing the exact math doesn’t imply that you can´t establish that the probability of something is low”

Please acknowledge that this particular statement is true, after you do that I will deal with the other 100 objections that you might have

While that is true in general, it does require some knowledge of the correlations between different events. Without such, even a ball park figure on the end probability is impossible.

For example, suppose that you ask for a string of 50 symbols, each with 90 possibilities. Assuming independence, the end probability of a correct match would be one in 90^50, which is vanishingly small.

If you did such a random selection 50,000 times, the end probability of getting a match would still be vanishingly small.

But, suppose instead that you randomly select a string then produce 100 children by randomly selecting a symbol and randomly changing it. Then you pick the child that is closest to the target string. Let that child produce 100 randomly generated children in the same way.

Now, ask yourself what the probability of getting a match for the target string is after 500 generations (still 50,000 trials, notice).

The end probability now is almost 1.

So, no, you cannot even estimate the probability accurately unless you have the correct formulation (or something quite close to it). You cannot even know if the probability is small if you calculate it in the wrong way.

 

[Polymath257]

Yea but those 22 left handed aminoacids don’t simply appear , no natural mechanism creates “just” the 22 left handed (LH) amonacids that you need,

Not precisely true. Having a clay substrate can affect the relative amounts of left and right amino acids greatly, which affect the end probabilities.

Once you have a soup full of aminoacids (both left and right handed) it is unlikely to have a chain of say 10,000 aminoacids that are all LH, having a chain that has just the aminoacids that you need is even more unlikely.

This would be false if left amino acids preferentially made chains with other left amino acids (which seems likely given the nature of the bonds). Do you have evidence that left and right amino acids are equally likely to form chains with both types?

If the correlation between the first amino acid in the chain and subsequent ones is high, then your probability calculation will be badly off and the end probability can be quite high.

Again the point is, that even though I can’t show the exact math, one can still conclude that it is unlikely

No, you can't, *unless* you also have some idea about the correlations.

For example, in your scenario, if each amino acid only forms chains with its own type, then the formation of chains would be an effective way to separate left and right amino acids and also give only chains of one type. The probability of any individual chain being all 'left' would be 50%.