• 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?

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
To refute the teleology I see in nature you would have to demonstrate that the suited functions found in living creatures such as humans is not purposeful.

If functions are neutral, suited functions are not neutral. Anything that is suited demonstrates purpose. There may not be any grande purpose to existence, but there are purposes suited for living creatures.

There's a convenient logic to the functions of the human body. I suppose one could imagine functions appearing in humans that work against human well being. Yet there's no good naturalist reason why eyes appear in living creatures. Eyes serve a great purpose to humans. They are conveniently placed to serve the purposes of creatures. If mindless processes produce functions they certainly would be unable to produce suited functions. And there's many suited functions in a human being.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
But it is your problem, whenever you bring up “purpose” to your claim of some things being organized and designed.
What is it that you think scientists are seeking if it's not knowledge of how existence is organized, and how it functions, and why it functions as it does?
By making such claims, then it is your responsibility to back up your such (repeated) claims.
I'm not making claims. I'm just stating the obvious. Existence is organized, functional, purposeful, and complex. Mankind wants to understand that organization, so as to gain some of that functionality and turn it to our own purposes.The fact that this is not obvious to you is your blind spot, not mine. And that's not my job to overcome. Especially while you're working so hard to maintain it.
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.
What part of, "it is the purpose of the DNA molecule to enable and maintain life as a fulfilled existential possibility" do you disagree with?
Why do you think others here keep telling you support your claims?
I think it's because they can't think of a sensible objection, yet they feel driven to object by whatever means they can muster. Don't you realize that all this "prove it to me" crap is just a way of saying that you have no intention of accepting any amount or kind of evidence or reasoning that you're given? What do you think that says to me about you?
They do so, because you keep making positive claims about “purpose” then the burden of proof will always falls upon such claimants.
Explain how why think the DNA molecule has no purpose.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
To refute the teleology I see in nature you would have to demonstrate that the suited functions found in living creatures such as humans is not purposeful.

Sorry, but that would fall under the category of a belief and not a test. Also you used the term "purposeful". How would you define that? Functional is probably a better term and it also shows why your "test" fails.

If functions are neutral, suited functions are not neutral. Anything that is suited demonstrates purpose. There may not be any grande purpose to existence, but there are purposes suited for living creatures.

How would you prove that claim? You are posting assumptions as facts.

There's a convenient logic to the functions of the human body. I suppose one could imagine functions appearing in humans that work against human well being. Yet there's no good naturalist reason why eyes appear in living creatures. Eyes serve a great purpose to humans. They are conveniently placed to serve the purposes of creatures. If mindless processes produce functions they certainly would be unable to produce suited functions. And there's many suited functions in a human being.

Now that sounds like an argument for evolution and not for creqationism.

This may help you out. Please tell us what your model is. What are some of its predictions?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I'm not making claims. I'm just stating the obvious. Existence is organized, functional, purposeful, and complex. Mankind wants to understand that organization, so as to gain some of that functionality and turn it to our own purposes.The fact that this is not obvious to you is your blind spot, not mine. And that's not my job to overcome. Especially while you're working so hard to maintain it.

Sorry, if something is "obvious" then it should be dead simple to support with evidence. Where is your evidence that life is organized? What do you even mean by that claim? Where is your evidence that life is purposeful? And again, you should properly define that since you seem to think it has a non-standard definition.

Part of debating or discussing is being able to define one's terms and support them when called upon to do so. If a person can't then those claims can be dismissed with a handwave.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Come on, man, look at what you're writing!

Get back to me when you've regained your composure.
Oh look! A demand for evidence:

giphy.gif
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Sorry, but that would fall under the category of a belief and not a test. Also you used the term "purposeful". How would you define that? Functional is probably a better term and it also shows why your "test" fails.



How would you prove that claim? You are posting assumptions as facts.



Now that sounds like an argument for evolution and not for creqationism.

This may help you out. Please tell us what your model is. What are some of its predictions?
Eyes are used to navigate the environment we find ourselves in; that's their purpose. Eyes are meant for that.

Hands are meant to manipulate objects; that is their purpose.

Prove that eyes, and hands have no such purposes.

You seem to be saying that those purposes don't exist. You seem to be saying that eyes and hands are meaninglessly located and placed where we find them to be. No rhyme nor reason behind them.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Eyes are used to navigate the environment we find ourselves in; that's their purpose. Eyes are meant for that.

Hands are meant to manipulate objects; that is their purpose.

Prove that eyes, and hands have no such purposes.

You seem to be saying that those purposes don't exist. You seem to be saying that eyes and hands are meaninglessly located and placed where we find them to be. No rhyme nor reason behind them.

No, "purpose" implies agency. It is a loaded term that requires evidence. All of your examples are examples of function, not "purpose". Function is an unbiased term that neither supports or opposes a claim. "Purpose" is not unbiased. It puts a burden of proof upon the person that uses it.

I am not saying that "those purposes do not exist" . I am saying that we do not know if their is a purpose. You would have to show that there is. The do have a function. They may or may not have a purpose. Your claim, your burden of proof.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
No, "purpose" implies agency. It is a loaded term that requires evidence. All of your examples are examples of function, not "purpose". Function is an unbiased term that neither supports or opposes a claim. "Purpose" is not unbiased. It puts a burden of proof upon the person that uses it.

I am not saying that "those purposes do not exist" . I am saying that we do not know if their is a purpose. You would have to show that there is. The do have a function. They may or may not have a purpose. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Eyes function differently than a rock as a paper weight. For a rock as a paper weight I assign that purpose to the rock.

With eyes I can discern what they are meant for. Eyes may serve other functions, but they are evidently made for me to see where I'm going. They are suited for my purposes to see where I am going.

A pencil may serve many functions, but it is definitely meant for writing things down.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Eyes function differently than a rock as a paper weight. For a rock as a paper weight I assign that purpose to the rock.

With eyes I can discern what they are meant for. Eyes may serve other functions, but they are evidently made for me to see where I'm going. They are suited for my purposes to see where I am going.

A pencil may serve many functions, but it is definitely meant for writing things down.
How would you test your assumptions?

You do not even seem to have a model. This thread is made to help creationists get evidence for their beliefs. Most do not understand the concept of evidence. The first thing one needs is a model. That would be an explanation of what we can observe today, but explained by creationism. There are quite a few problems for a creationist, but of course it all depends upon what sort of creationist one s.

So what do you believe and why? You need to be specific. How would you explain what we can observe about life? Not only life that is alive now but also in the fossil record. And how do you explain what we see in DNA? "God did it" is not an explanation. It is a claim.

Then you need a way to test your model. What prediction does it make? You need to separate those from the claims. How would you test it based upon those predictions?

Once you can do that then you can claim to have evidence for creationism.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
How would you test your assumptions?

You do not even seem to have a model. This thread is made to help creationists get evidence for their beliefs. Most do not understand the concept of evidence. The first thing one needs is a model. That would be an explanation of what we can observe today, but explained by creationism. There are quite a few problems for a creationist, but of course it all depends upon what sort of creationist one s.

So what do you believe and why? You need to be specific. How would you explain what we can observe about life? Not only life that is alive now but also in the fossil record. And how do you explain what we see in DNA? "God did it" is not an explanation. It is a claim.

Then you need a way to test your model. What prediction does it make? You need to separate those from the claims. How would you test it based upon those predictions?

Once you can do that then you can claim to have evidence for creationism.

Your standard of evidence is a human construct and thus subject to human fallibilities. For you it has to be a model that is testable and makes predictions. Not everything in existence that is real is testable and makes predictions. How is consciousness testable, and how can we make predictions about it so that we know it is real?
Or how does anyone know that a pencil is meant for the purpose to write things down? You would have to be limited to saying the pencil functions as a writing instrument but no purpose for it is knowable. We can make a purpose for the pencil, but there is no inherent purpose to the makings of a pencil.

Consciousness is known about by first person experience and not by way of models that are testable and make predictions.

There's no way that I know of to develope a model to test and make predictions about purposes in nature. That doesn't make it less real.

There's ways of knowing things without models, tests, and predictions.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Your standard of evidence is a human construct and thus subject to human fallibilities. For you it has to be a model that is testable and makes predictions. Not everything in existence that is real is testable and makes predictions. How is consciousness testable, and how can we make predictions about it so that we know it is real?
Or how does anyone know that a pencil is meant for the purpose to write things down? You would have to be limited to saying the pencil functions as a writing instrument but no purpose for it is knowable. We can make a purpose for the pencil, but there is no inherent purpose to the makings of a pencil.

Consciousness is known about by first person experience and not by way of models that are testable and make predictions.

There's no way that I know of to develope a model to test and make predictions about purposes in nature. That doesn't make it less real.

There's ways of knowing things without models, tests, and predictions.

All evidence is a human construct. Why complain?

Scientific evidence is very well defined, is very unbiased, and as part of the scientific method, it is extremely successful. That is why creationists are jealous of it.. They have no reliable evidence for their myths and there is only evidence against their beliefs. That is why almost no one in the sciences takes creationism seriously. It is how we know that it is wrong.

And what makes you think that consciousness cannot be measured and tested?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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


We know.
We also know that it only demonstrates your failure in understanding the replies you have been receiving.
Not to say, your unwillingness to understand them.

We have tried to help you understand it, yet again, by explaining how your "analogy though sarcasm" was misplaced.

But alas.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
I know you can't do that. You don't appear to be able to open your own. Even with all the help.

Your observations are what you want to see and they are not obvious or correct. You have not even tried to substantiate them. You just repeat them and then demean the opposition as being at fault. You don't even show us that.

I wouldn't ask you to show me if you had shown me.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yet there's no good naturalist reason why eyes appear in living creatures.

Are you being serious?

Sight is a trait that has evolved dozens of times independently.
It's one of the most common traits there is. There's a reason for that. Good reason.

Eyes serve a great purpose to humans.

Function.

They are conveniently placed to serve the purposes of creatures. If mindless processes produce functions they certainly would be unable to produce suited functions

Every genetic algorithm demonstrates otherwise.


And there's many suited functions in a human being.

Yes. And not just in humans. In all living things. Natural selection is infamous for selecting for what is useful and selecting against what is not.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Eyes are used to navigate the environment we find ourselves in; that's their purpose.

That's their function.

Eyes are meant for that.

The mole disagrees.
So does the chinese pigmy mouse.

Hands are meant to manipulate objects; that is their purpose.

Function

Prove that eyes, and hands have no such purposes.

It's your claim that they do have "purpose". You prove it.
I say those are just functions.

You seem to be saying that those purposes don't exist.

I'ld rather say that there is no evidence of purpose.
There is evidence of function.

You seem to be saying that eyes and hands are meaninglessly located and placed where we find them to be. No rhyme nor reason behind them.

There are explanations for why those things exist the way they do, for the functions that they have.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
That you can't demand others to action to search for your mistakes is hardly evidence of your perfection.

Your use of the invalidated concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity to argue your claims of intelligent design has been continually noted. It hardly requires anyone to waste time digging around looking for posts indicating that.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I know you can't do that. You don't appear to be able to open your own. Even with all the help.

Your observations are what you want to see and they are not obvious or correct. You have not even tried to substantiate them. You just repeat them and then demean the opposition as being at fault. You don't even show us that.

I wouldn't ask you to show me if you had shown me.
What have I observed that you don't see as being accurate? That existence is organized? That existence is functional? That existence is purposeful? Or that existence is highly complex?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What have I observed that you don't see as being accurate? That existence is organized? That existence is functional? That existence is purposeful? Or that existence is highly complex?
Define your terms and your phrases.. If you cannot define them and are merely trying to sneak a god in where there is evidence for none then I will say that I do not see how being is "organized". I do not see how "existence is functional". I can see that many things are highly complex but does that mean all of existence is highly complex? I do not see that.

You appear to have no clear point. Your arguments tend to look just like creationist ones where they try to sneak a god in since they cannot find any evidence for one.

Right now all you have are arguments that are refuted with a simple:

So what?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
What have I observed that you don't see as being accurate? That existence is organized? That existence is functional? That existence is purposeful? Or that existence is highly complex?
I told you I agreed with you regarding organized and functional. I guess you didn't see that either. You have not demonstrated purpose. You just keep claiming that things have purpose and declare how it is obvious without showing anything to support those claims and declaration. It is not obvious, in fact, it is an unsupported claim. Likely you confuse function and purpose or you have convinced yourself it is a fact without actually looking.

Now you have added complexity into the mix. Complexity varies from simple to complex. There appears to be no demand that things be complex. That appears to be a consequence and simplicity occurs as well. For instance, there is no claim in the theory of evolution nor standing conclusion from it that living things must proceed towards complexity.
 
Top