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



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.



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%.


Do you have evidence that left and right amino acids are equally likely to form chains with both types?

I personally have no idea, but the whole point (and in response to the OP) this is testable and falsifiable stuff.

If they are equally likely then the pattern would have Specified Complexity( SC), if they are not equally likely but rather there is a strong correlation in favor of bonding with amino acids with your same hand, the SC claim would be falsified.

This wouldn’t be an “argument from ignorance “ as claim, it would be an argument based on the positive testable and objective evidence that we have to date. One could test if they are equally likely or not.

This is an example of me not knowing the answer and depending on the answer I would conclude SC or “no-SC”……….. therefore this is testable stuff.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
So the math that Dembski's entire concept rests upon is unsound, and you don't see how that's enough of an objection to question his entire concept? Is that right?
Yes, that is right


Would you reject everything that is not based on sound math?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Yes, that is right


Would you reject everything that is not based on sound math?
My argument isn't that arguments that don't rest upon math are erroneous. Rather, it's that Dembski's entire concept rests upon math that has been demonstrated to be unsound.
As in, he the math he uses doesn't work. It doesn't demonstrate what he claims it does. Since that math is what his entire concept rests up, then his entire concept is called into question.

If you make an entire argument that rests upon the notion that 2+2=5, you're going to be wrong from the get-go.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
And you would be wrong.

For example, suppose that red roses preferentially appear close to other red roses (whether by genetics or some other mechanism). Or suppose that a growing red rose makes it more likely that a nearby rose will turn on its red genetics. Then, the whole field can be of red roses simply because the first one was red.

You need to know that red and white roses are equally likely *in the context of the field of roses*.

Testing by taking randomly selected seeds and seeing what sort of rose arises would NOT be a good test.

In particular, you need to have detailed information about the mechanism of red vs white roses and how that mechanism works in the cases under consideration.



Or maybe they are just as likely initially for any given field, but once the field is red or white, that color is consistent.



because you leap to an unsubstantiated conclusion before enough information is found to justify any conclusion at all.

*in the context of the field of roses*.
I agree, I wish I would have come out with those words.

But again this is testable stuff, you can show if white flowers are unlikely in the context of those flowers.

because you leap to an unsubstantiated conclusion before enough information is found to justify any conclusion at all

Well nobody is suggesting that you most conclude something without enough information, my suggestion is that if there are good positive reasons to think that

1 there are many flowers (say a few hundred)

2 that they are all red

3 and that white and red flowers are equally likely to flourish and survive in nature

Then you can conclude that there are good reasons to say that the pattern is SC and therefore that there is an intelligent designer (say a gardener) who artificially selects red flowers over white flowers…. (even if you don’t have prior evidence for the existence of the gardener)

Obviously all conclusions are tentative, at any point, one can present new evidence that could ether refute or reinforce previous conclusions.

At this point I am not affirming that the flowers (or life) is SC, all I am saying is that one can conclude SC based on positive and testable evidence,
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
My argument isn't that arguments that don't rest upon math are erroneous. Rather, it's that Dembski's entire concept rests upon math that has been demonstrated to be unsound.
As in, he the math he uses doesn't work. It doesn't demonstrate what he claims it does. Since that math is what his entire concept rests up, then his entire concept is called into question.

If you make an entire argument that rests upon the notion that 2+2=5, you're going to be wrong from the get-go.
Well I reject your claim, I don’t think Demskies argument rests entirely on his math , if anything the math is just a nice bonus
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
What you are expected to do is to quote my arguments and explain why you think are wrong (or not well supported)
That has been done to death.

But right now you appear to be making a very bad argument involving left and right amino acids.

Do you realize that left handed amino acids only make other left handed amino acids?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
You have not given us a valid test.
Every time you attempted it, it turned out to be "try finding a natural explanation" and if you can't, then you can assume design. That's not even a test to begin with.

You have no test FOR design. Neither do you have an argument FOR design.

All you have, is pointing to ignorance of a natural explanation coupled with "it's complex".

The same kind of argument of ignorance that can be found at the bottom of every "intelligent design" argument
There is nothing wrong with making a negative test against X in order to prove “no-X” for example I don’t see anything wrong nor unscientific to look for a Y choromose in a sample, and if you fail to find it, then it must be a woman.

But that is not what I am doing, one concludes SC based on positive knowledge that one can get through observation, tests, etc.

One concludes that white roses are as likely as red roses based on positive knowledge……,
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
What do you think is the foundation for his concept, then?

How is unsound math a "nice bonus," exactly?
I meant that having sound math would have been a nice bonus.

Demskis cased is based on the fact that information can only come from a mind, and that DNA is information (analogous to words and sentences)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I personally have no idea, but the whole point (and in response to the OP) this is testable and falsifiable stuff.

If they are equally likely then the pattern would have Specified Complexity( SC), if they are not equally likely but rather there is a strong correlation in favor of bonding with amino acids with your same hand, the SC claim would be falsified.

This wouldn’t be an “argument from ignorance “ as claim, it would be an argument based on the positive testable and objective evidence that we have to date. One could test if they are equally likely or not.

This is an example of me not knowing the answer and depending on the answer I would conclude SC or “no-SC”……….. therefore this is testable stuff.
In other words an argument from ignorance.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I meant that having sound math would have been a nice bonus.

Demskis cased is based on the fact that information can only come from a mind, and that DNA is information (analogous to words and sentences)
Well he loses that argument. He cannot properly define "information". Any definition that I know of shows that information arises naturally.

Now you only created a new problem for yourself. You need to define information in a way that it cannot arise naturally. Handwaving definitions do not count.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
No that would not be a “argument form ignorance” one calculates “natural likely hood” based on the positive information that one has

So basically (and using your words)

1 I observe a pattern

2 consider the natural likely hood based on the information that we have to date

3 if the liklyhood is too low, I would conclude design

4 if future information comes in, I might change my conclusions

So you really aren't seeing how you are appealing to ignorance of a natural explanation here in order to conclude a design explanation, instead of actually offering a positive case FOR design?????

Do you see anything wrong with that?.

Yes. And I'm absolutely flabbergasted that you don't.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I think I found your mistake.

1 No I will not infer design if I can’t find a natural explanation,

That is LITERALLY the opposite of what you just said in the previous post:

1 I observe a pattern

2 consider the natural likely hood based on the information that we have to date

3 if the liklyhood is too low, I would conclude design




For crying out loud...................................................................

This is a new low, even for you.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
That is not how arguments form ignorance are defined

I am presenting a case based on premises that can be objectively tested , if this is not good enough for you then I don’t know what else to do
"i don't how it can happen naturally" is not a test, nor does it constitute a positive case for an unnatural origin.

It's just an appeal to ignorance.

Sorry that you can't seem to comprehend this simple thing.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
There is nothing wrong with making a negative test against X in order to prove “no-X”

upload_2022-12-1_22-55-37.png



But that is not what I am doing, one concludes SC based on positive knowledge that one can get through observation, tests, etc.

No you aren't and it has been demonstrated to death that you aren't.
You just literally made post where you explain how you aren't.

One concludes that white roses are as likely as red roses based on positive knowledge……,

No. You are concluding it on the fact that you can't explain why there are only red ones.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Not at all. Even if you are correct about the direction of the DNA helix you appear to be conflating the handedness of the helix with the handedness of the amino acids that it is made up of. Left handed nucleotides can only make left handed nucleotides. The problem of chirality applies to abiogenesis and not evolution. And the discussion here is about evolution, not abiogenesis.

Evolution does not have to deal with the problem of chirality; handedness, since it was already ironed out by Abiogenesis. The dice have been stacked for evolution. One can argue that if we assume life formed 6000 years ago, like in Creationism, evolution would have started after that, since the hard part was already done.

During abiogenesis, chirality was a problem that needed to be solved, with randomness not helping the cause. Randomness would prefer maintain two stereo isomers; left and right handed helices. Instead we needed to find a way to go against the second law and randomness to lock in the lower entropy state of single handedness. Now there is a new potential platform for change, that will be driven by the 2nd law,

Evolution deals with life, much later in time, than does Creation. Creation has to start before and during abiogenesis. What would happen, if we required science to start before and through abiogenesis, to explain evolution, so we have apples to apples?

Say Genesis was not in the Bible. Rather, say the Bible began with the second book or the Book of Exodus. This single chapter skipping would make it easier for the rest to appear credible.

This is what evolution does. It skips the first chapter of life; abiogenesis and doing so, it can avoid the hard questions that still lack answers. This would spill over into the current theory of evolution and make that seem less clear cut.

This topic is about how would you disprove Creationism. I appears I have been able to showed you how to do this with Evolution; not let it skip abiogenesis, since the bible does not skip its Genesis to make this all seem easier and more credible.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Evolution does not have to deal with the problem of chirality; handedness, since it was already ironed out by Abiogenesis. The dice have been stacked for evolution. One can argue that if we assume life formed 6000 years ago, like in Creationism, evolution would have started after that, since the hard part was already done.

Why start your post with a losing argument. We can show that life has existed for billions of years. I don't think that anyone can properly understand @leroy 's argument since he does not appear to understand it himself. And evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis. So yes, it is about as close to being a fact as possible that all life is the product of evolution from a single common ancestor.

During abiogenesis, chirality was a problem that needed to be solved, with randomness not helping the cause. Randomness would prefer maintain two stereo isomers; left and right handed helices. Instead we needed to find a way to go against the second law and randomness to lock in the lower entropy state of single handedness. Now there is a new potential platform for change, that will be driven by the 2nd law,

Evolution deals with life, much later in time, than does Creation. Creation has to start before and during abiogenesis. What would happen, if we required science to start before and through abiogenesis, to explain evolution, so we have apples to apples?

If you are trying to make a point I do not see it. But yes, chirality is a problem, but one that has more than one possible solution.

Say Genesis was not in the Bible. Rather, say the Bible began with the second book or the Book of Exodus. This single chapter skipping would make it easier for the rest to appear credible.

This is what evolution does. It skips the first chapter of life; abiogenesis and doing so, it can avoid the hard questions that still lack answers. This would spill over into the current theory of evolution and make that seem less clear cut.

I see, you appear to have a misunderstanding of how science is done. No, evolution did not skip anything. We learned that evolution is how life arose. It was not formed to refute the myths of Genesis. That was merely a consequence of that knowledge. Just as the knowledge from geology refuted the Noah's Ark myth.

This topic is about how would you disprove Creationism. I appears I have been able to showed you how to do this with Evolution; not let it skip abiogenesis, since the bible does not skip its Genesis to make this all seem easier and more credible.

No, the topic is actually on how one would find any evidence for creationism. And you do not get to set unreasonable goals for the sciences. Your attempt was a failure. You may not understand this, but to even begin to have evidence for an idea in the sciences that idea has to be falsifiable. No creationist has been able to come up with a proper testable model of creation. No testable model means no evidence.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
That has been done to death.

But right now you appear to be making a very bad argument involving left and right amino acids.

I didn’t make an argument with LH aminoacids, I used them as an example of an equation


Do you realize that left handed amino acids only make other left handed amino acids?
No, that is news to me.

And if LH aminoacids can make other LH aminoacids that would refute the claim that LH aminoacids are SC.

See the argument is falsifiable and apparently you have the knowledge
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
This topic is about how would you disprove Creationism. I appears I have been able to showed you how to do this with Evolution; not let it skip abiogenesis, since the bible does not skip its Genesis to make this all seem easier and more credible.
Walk me through how this works.

If scientists haven't figured out how the first life arose, how does that disprove observations of populations evolving?

How does it disprove the common ancestry of humans and other primates?
 
Top