• 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?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Is it really that hard to understand that those "specific characteristics" includes having knowledge or not about origins?




As explained ad nauseum............... point 3, in bold, requires that knowledge.
How else can you determine if it's "likely" or not?

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......................................................................

Fill in the blanks. You should be able to by now.



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"?



I honestly don't understand how you can just keep doubling down on a gigantic argument from ignorance / circularity
A giant argument from ignorance is all that he has left.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Well The field of roses has an unknown origin , so one would

1 observe the roses (are they all red)…. If Yes then add a checkmark
(

2 count the roses (do we have hundreds of roses) )…. If Yes then add a checkmark


3 understand the laws that roses follow (genetics for example), Are white roses as likely as red roses?)……….. you can make a simple experiment, take a few sample of roses, (or seeds) plant them and see if white and red roses appear at a 50/50 ratio )…….. If Yes then add a checkmark

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


Derp.

Note,that you don’t need to know the origin of the roses a priori, you don’t need to know if they were designed before concluding SC

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.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So what? None of my arguments is dependent on his math being correct

So we are just going to ignore that his entire case in "support" of his SC argument rests on his "math"?
That's how he motivates it.

If you remove it, then all you are left with are unmotivated assertions.

Fine by me though. And it's not going to change anything about the many problems we have already pointed out.

It's just a weird stance to take.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
It is very easy to be a fanatic atheist like you, all you have to do is claim “argument from ignorance” without any justification, and suddenly you win

A "fanatic atheist". Lol.
Sure, add an ad hominin to the mix. What's one more fallacy gonna change, right.

Apparently you haven't noticed that you aren't just arguing with atheists in this thread.

And the justification for your use of the argument of ignorance has been given to you in this thread a bazillion times already.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
4 all possible combinations are more less equally likely

That point requires knowledge of the processes that produced the thing. Otherwise, you can't assess the likelihood of any particular combination.

I'll just keep repeating this point until it will sink into that weaponized brick head of yours.

4 all combinations are equally likely (if I type random letters, I am equally likely to type “dogs” or “jafr”

Requires knowledge of the processes that produces it.

It would be nice to have sound math and calculate the exact probabilities, but you don’t need them, you don’t need exact math in order to conclude that it is unlikely to type random letters, and end up with a meaningful sentence.

But you do need knowledge of the process that produced the letters to be able to determine the likelihood of it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
A "fanatic atheist". Lol.
Sure, add an ad hominin to the mix. What's one more fallacy gonna change, right.

Apparently you haven't noticed that you aren't just arguing with atheists in this thread.

And the justification for your use of the argument of ignorance has been given to you in this thread a bazillion times already.
In this context I take "fanatic atheist" as a compliment since it is obviously synonymous with "correct".

Though I don't know how I will break the news to @Dan From Smithville that he is a " fanatic atheist " too.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You're not?


What you are doing is relying on an idea for which the foundational math is unsound.


All the author of the paper would have to do to demonstrate that Dembski's concept is mathematically unsound, is to demonstrate that Dembski's math is unsound. The author doesn't need to "correct" the math or should that evolution is correct, or whatever else. Maybe the "math" for SC just doesn't work because it's just a plain old bad concept.
I notice that "math unsound" seems to equate to "the probabilities can't be calculated or calculated accurately" by the intelligent design proponents. Which isn't correct or the only failure of Dembski's SC. Other, more basic math of his has been shown to be flawed too. What I find telling in all these adventures is that the proponents clearly have never looked. I think a supporter of an idea should be more than trivially aware of the idea. Otherwise, it is just blind, zealous support of claims that fit with their personal position and nothing more.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes evolution can create functional genetic sequences, I don’t deny that, and haven’t said anything that implies that I would disagree with that statement

The point of the comment that you are responding to, is that evolution is still a good solid theory even in the absence of “sound maths”

In other words I am defending evolution
You haven't established that there is not sound math backing the theory of evolution. When do you think you did that and how? Is it in your mind that saying it is true makes it true?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Yep, and you didn’t see the question mark ether , you definitely need those glasses.

Why should I apologize?

A straw man is when you wrongly represent your opponents view, I didn’t do that, I didn’t even tried to represent anyone’s view
That is misrepresenting an opponents view.

Is it your view that when cornered on the facts ad hominems will get you out?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Like all the ones that have been pointed out to you over and over in this thread. The same ones that you keep asking about over and over as though they've never been pointed out to you before.
Like you're doing right now, which is one of the reasons discussions with you never get anywhere.



No, no. The actual math that Dembski has presented in support of his idea about specified complexity is unsound. I.e. His calculations are not based on sound reasoning, so his calculations are unreliable or unacceptable.

Not a Free Lunch
Dembski's Latest: "Life's Conservation Law", and why it's stupid | Good Math/Bad Math
Design Arguments for the Existence of God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

And again there's the plain fact that his ideas have stagnated since he first proposed them. They have not furthered any scientific research. They have not gained any traction in the scientific community in all that time. Why do you think that is, and why do you keep ignoring this fact?
I've been reading the links. Glad you posted that.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
No it is not an argument from ignorance

what prevents you to make objective test sand observations to see if point 1,2,3 is true…………….?

If you don’t have enough knowledge or tools to test each of the 3 points, then “I don’t know” would be the conclusion, you don’t conclude SC in this scenario ………. You only conclude SC if you have good reasons to think that 1 2 and 3 are true
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.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
According to your source (the second) the objection is that he misrepresents how evolution is suppose to work,

But so what

1 I am not denying evolution

2 I am not depending on these math to make my arguments

3 the author of your paper, didn’t showed the “correct maths” ether. In other words, he didn’t presented a mathematical model that shows that information evolves through evolution by natural selection ……………So if anything the only conclusion is that nobody (creationists, nor evolutionists) can prove their claims mathematically
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.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Nothing could be said to be SC until we determine if the pattern has the specific characteristics mentioned earlier


Is it really that hard to understand?






You don’t need to know the origin , all you need to know if the pattern has the characteristics that I mentioned earlier.

For example you need to know if

1 there are many roses (say a few hundred)

2 if all the roses are red

3 if white roses are equally likely than red roses

Note that you don’t need to know the origin of the roses………………..so please would you stop repeating the same mistake over and over again?




Additional knowledge could refute any of those 3 points. you dont need a naturalistic expalnation, all you need is refute any of those 3 points

For example maybe a deeper observation shows that there are only 3 roses, perhaps a closer look shows that there are also white flowers, perhaps it is genetically impossible (or very unlikely) for white roses to appear in that specific population etc

Or could also be the other way around perhaps something seems tobe“no-SC” but aditinal knowledge could makes us change the conclusion.

I honestly don’t understand why do you find this so hard to understand,
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?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Nothing could be said to be SC until we determine if the pattern has the specific characteristics mentioned earlier


Is it really that hard to understand?






You don’t need to know the origin , all you need to know if the pattern has the characteristics that I mentioned earlier.

For example you need to know if

1 there are many roses (say a few hundred)

2 if all the roses are red

3 if white roses are equally likely than red roses

Note that you don’t need to know the origin of the roses………………..so please would you stop repeating the same mistake over and over again?




Additional knowledge could refute any of those 3 points. you dont need a naturalistic expalnation, all you need is refute any of those 3 points

For example maybe a deeper observation shows that there are only 3 roses, perhaps a closer look shows that there are also white flowers, perhaps it is genetically impossible (or very unlikely) for white roses to appear in that specific population etc

Or could also be the other way around perhaps something seems tobe“no-SC” but aditinal knowledge could makes us change the conclusion.

I honestly don’t understand why do you find this so hard to understand,
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.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I notice that "math unsound" seems to equate to "the probabilities can't be calculated or calculated accurately" by the intelligent design proponents. Which isn't correct or the only failure of Dembski's SC. Other, more basic math of his has been shown to be flawed too. What I find telling in all these adventures is that the proponents clearly have never looked. I think a supporter of an idea should be more than trivially aware of the idea. Otherwise, it is just blind, zealous support of claims that fit with their personal position and nothing more.
Thank you! I was trying to think of a way to say that and you just nailed it. :)
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You haven't established that there is not sound math backing the theory of evolution. When do you think you did that and how? Is it in your mind that saying it is true makes it true?
You haven't established that there is not sound math backing the theory of evolution. When do you think you did that and how? Is it in your mind that saying it is true makes it true?
Ohhh

“John Smith” proved that

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