What would refute creationism?

[PureX]

Of course chance is not play the dominant role in evolution. That would be natural selection. But there does not appear to be a purpose. As @TagliatelliMonster pointed out to another, you are conflating function and purpose.

The purpose is the creation and sustaining of life. And I am not referring to life specifically in my comments, but of existence, itself. As it's all of the same source and mechanisms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I proposed nothing about intent or purpose. The complexity is obvious, and so is the result, which we can assume to be the purpose. But I stated that the source is a mystery. And so then is the purpose beyond the obvious result. I also stated that it's not logically believable that all this could happen by accident. Chance plays a role, but clearly is not the singular or dominant mechanism involved. Unfortunately, we still have not determined what the fundamental mechanisms are.

You say you propose nothing about purpose and in the very next sentence you assume purpose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The purpose is the creation and sustaining of life. And I am not referring to life specifically in my comments, but of existence, itself. As it's all of the same source and mechanisms.

That appears to be a result, not a purpose.

Purpose implies an agency. That would put a burden of proof upon you. Function is neutral. It neither confirms or denies an agency. It is neutral. Many theists try to sneak a god in by using the word purpose.

 

[PureX]

You say you propose nothing about purpose and in the very next sentence you assume purpose.

I assume the result is the purpose. How could it be otherwise? The purpose of life is to live. Whatever other purpose it may or may not have is a mystery to us, but the organization and complexity of existence resulted in this very specific phenomenon. And that was clearly it's purpose, whatever else that purpose may or may not be. Even more so it resulted in cognition, which is truly extraordinary. As it give existence an awareness of itself. If I were to speculate about any ulterior purpose beyond the universe, itself, that would be at the top of my list.

 

[PureX]

That appears to be a result, not a purpose.

Purpose implies an agency.

Only to those of you that are driven into a panic by any suggestion of some sort of creator deity. To me it does not imply anything but a great existential mystery.

The result of any complex design process is the purpose of that complex design process. Life is the result of a complex design process, so we have to accept that life is the purpose of that process, especially when that process specifically intends to create and maintain that result.

But we know nothing beyond the obvious. We do not know the source of this designing process. We don't even know the fundamentals of the process, itself, except for a few obvious intermediate steps. And we certainly don't know if or what might be the purpose of it beyond the obvious results. The only intent we can see is what is obvious: and that is to produce these specific results.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only to those of you that are driven into a panic by any suggestion of some sort of creator deity. To me it does not imply anything but a great existential mystery.

The result of any complex design process is the purpose of that complex design process. Life is the result of a complex design process, so we have to accept that life is the purpose of that process, especially when that process specifically intends to create and maintain that result.

But we know nothing beyond the obvious. We do not know the source of this designing process. We don't even know the fundamentals of the process, itself, except for a few obvious intermediate steps. And we certainly don't know if or what might be the purpose of it beyond the obvious results. The only intent we can see is what is obvious: and that is to produce these specific results.

Don't be ridiculous. No rational person is panicking

And once again when you claim a purpose you take on a burden of proof. Function is not a synonym of purpose.

 

[PureX]

Don't be ridiculous. No rational person is panicking

And once again when you claim a purpose you take on a burden of proof. Function is not a synonym of purpose.

A function must fulfill it's purpose or it's dysfunctional. In fact, functionality is defined by it's having achieved it's purpose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A function must fulfill it's purpose or it's dysfunctional. In fact, functionality is defined by it's having achieved it's purpose.

No, a function must merely be utile. You are conflating human made products with a function with naturally occurring objects with a function.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A function must fulfill it's purpose or it's dysfunctional. In fact, functionality is defined by it's having achieved it's purpose.

No.

Function refers to how something is being used.
Purpose refers to how something is intended to be used.

You can have function without purpose and you can have purpose without function.

They are not the same thing.

This isn't hard.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Only to those of you that are driven into a panic by any suggestion of some sort of creator deity. To me it does not imply anything but a great existential mystery.

The result of any complex design process is the purpose of that complex design process. Life is the result of a complex design process, so we have to accept that life is the purpose of that process, especially when that process specifically intends to create and maintain that result.

But we know nothing beyond the obvious. We do not know the source of this designing process. We don't even know the fundamentals of the process, itself, except for a few obvious intermediate steps. And we certainly don't know if or what might be the purpose of it beyond the obvious results. The only intent we can see is what is obvious: and that is to produce these specific results.

You make a lot of bare assertions here and most of them are based on false assumptions.

For example, when it gets cold water freezes.
Ice is just what happens when water finds itself in a cold environment.
There is no "purpose" there. It's just the deterministic result of the circumstances.

The generation of the force of gravity is complex. And it results in me breaking my face when I trip.
The purpose of gravity is not for me to break my face.

 

[leroy]

No, you are trying to use an argument from ignorance against a concept that is supported by evidence.

After all of this time you still do not understand the concept of evidence. Why am I not surprised?

Nope

It´s an argument from ignorance, just because you don’t know of any mechanism that can create many rings in 1 years doesn’t mean that such mechanism doesn’t exist.

 

[leroy]

Actually, the goal of the thread is for creationists to post their testable models.

Which I did……………I provided a model and explain how can it be tested and falsified………..the model doesn’t fail just because you don’t understand SC

Why does that allow you to conclude design?

That is too complex for you to understand

1 first understand what SC

2 then Íll explain why the first life was SC

3 Then I will explain why SC implies design

We are at point 1 and we wont move to points 2 and 3 until you show that you understand SC

Darwin didn't come up with new evidence. Instead he came up with an explanation of already existing data.
Data that, according to your "model", is SC.

As an analogy

1 My model states that blue dots come from a blue pen

2 I saw a dot that really seems to be blue (based on the evidence we have)

3 darwin came and showed WITH NEW evidence that the dot is actually Red

Darwin falsified one of the premises, but the model could still be true

The Same with SC

1 The model states that SC comes from a mind

2 eyes seemed to be SC (based on the evidence that we have)

3 Darwin showed that eyes are not SC

Darwin falsified premise 2 but not the model (1) understand? Is this clear?

It matches the criteria you yourself posted.

I personally don’t know if eye balls are SC or not, I simply don’t know enough about eyeballs in order to claim ether way.

If Darwin is correct then eye balls are not SC, because they would fail at point 3

"3 The small portion of possible combinations (in point 2) is as unlikely (or nearly as unlikely) as any other combination."

according to darwin, complex modern eyes are just a resoult of selective preassure, this selective pressure forced "ancient eyes" to become better and more complex

in other words usefull eyes are more likely to appear and survive that a random mess of useless organs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope

It´s an argument from ignorance, just because you don’t know of any mechanism that can create many rings in 1 years doesn’t mean that such mechanism doesn’t exist.

That is not what an argument from ignorance is. Logic is not a skill that you seem to have right now. I think that it is your creationist fears that keep you from understanding simple concepts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which I did……………I provided a model and explain how can it be tested and falsified………..the model doesn’t fail just because you don’t understand SC

No, you did not. And your failure was explained to you by quite a few posters.



[/quote]

That is too complex for you to understand[/quote]

Dang it! Hide those silly claims in spoiler alerts. Irony meters do not grow on trees!

1 first understand what SC

2 then Íll explain why the first life was SC

3 Then I will explain why SC implies design

We are at point 1 and we wont move to points 2 and 3 until you show that you understand SC


As an analogy

1 My model states that blue dots come from a blue pen

2 I saw a dot that really seems to be blue (based on the evidence we have)

3 darwin came and showed WITH NEW evidence that the dot is actually Red

Darwin falsified one of the premises, but the model could still be true

The Same with SC

1 The model states that SC comes from a mind

2 eyes seemed to be SC (based on the evidence that we have)

3 Darwin showed that eyes are not SC

Darwin falsified premise 2 but not the model (1) understand? Is this clear?









I personally don’t know if eye balls are SC or not, I simply don’t know enough about eyeballs in order to claim ether way.

If Darwin is correct then eye balls are not SC, because they would fail at point 3

"3 The small portion of possible combinations (in point 2) is as unlikely (or nearly as unlikely) as any other combination."

according to darwin, complex modern eyes are just a resoult of selective preassure, this selective pressure forced "ancient eyes" to become better and more complex

in other words usefull eyes are more likely to appear and survive that a random mess of useless organs.

So much nonsense. Since the person that you copied the phrase from cannot define SC, what makes you think that you can?

 

[rational experiences]

A creationists human exact place. A human a man human who invented his human thesis scientific expression. As the human man only...not a God.

God didn't tell him. He told himself about God as the man. Feedback mind turned the advice around falsely. AI effect self mind possession human.

A man with a machine comparing human presence not evolution to his Machines reaction. Inside a machine men build. Mass type what he puts into machine.

Meanwhile AI designer man false image says self human body is inside suns mass lying. An alien. My human body is invented inside a sun mass machine possessed mind.

In the past he was termed a criminal as the scientist who as criminal minds prove does not ever change his behaviour. Even when Galileo...was put in goal sun theist he still remained evil thinker. No behaviour change.

What criminal meant refuses to learn or change after being taught to the contrary...life attacked.

Proof you are the destroyer not the creator as legal said no man is God.

No such reality a human creationist or evolutionist as in legal you are present the entity in law and human.

The God argument is a legal precedence O earth created it's own heavens not any human. No man is God.

Theist just a mutual equal human pretends they are the God who by machine invented created creations position of everything.

Human warning in science do not believe like Muslim man.

Last community who said falling star was holy and wanted to rebuild techhnology pyramids.

Temple used AI transmitters itself in mountain in clouds machines position as human men.

Put earth metals where it never belonged first.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope

It´s an argument from ignorance, just because you don’t know of any mechanism that can create many rings in 1 years doesn’t mean that such mechanism doesn’t exist.

The case FOR dating using rings is not based on "we don't know how it can be done in a day".
Instead, it is based on a positive case with demonstrable, repeatable evidence of how it DOES work.

"we don't know how it can work another way" is not part of that case.


You still don't seem to understand what an argument from ignorance is or why your SC case is guilty of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is too complex for you to understand

1 first understand what SC

2 then Íll explain why the first life was SC

3 Then I will explain why SC implies design

We are at point 1 and we wont move to points 2 and 3 until you show that you understand SC

lol.

1 The model states that SC comes from a mind

That's an assertion. You need to support this assertion.

2 eyes seemed to be SC (based on the evidence that we have)

In other words: the properties of the eye, it's make up, qualify it as SC.

3 Darwin showed that eyes are not SC

Darwin didn't discover anything about the eye that changed the pattern thereof.
The build up of the eye remained the exact same. Its properties remained the exact same.
The only thing that Darwin did, was explain how that pattern can come about naturally.

Conclusion: your branding of the eye as SC is not based on the properties of the object.

You listed several times what makes an object qualify as SC. And every time it was clear that it is all about the buildup of that object. About its parts and how they are interconnected and their function in the larger system etc.

Now you say that it qualified as SC before Darwin and not after Darwin.

Now please explain that.
What specifically changed?

Don't just say "there was new evidence". Instead, mention that evidence.
What was it that darwin said that made the eye NOT qualify as SC any more?

Darwin falsified premise 2 but not the model (1) understand? Is this clear?

No, it's way to vague.
Get specific. Answer my question. Since you think I'm not understanding it, it will likely be easier to explain / understand if you go through it with the example of the eye step by step and with speciics.

1. WHY did the eye qualify as SC before Darwin?
2. WHAT specifically changed so that it no longer qualified as SC after Darwin?

I personally don’t know if eye balls are SC or not, I simply don’t know enough about eyeballs in order to claim ether way.

If Darwin is correct then eye balls are not SC, because they would fail at point 3

"3 The small portion of possible combinations (in point 2) is as unlikely (or nearly as unlikely) as any other combination."

In other words............ we are back to the argument from ignorance, where you actually need to know about the origins before you can infer design.

Because to know about the likelihood of the possible combinations, you have to know what possible combinations can occur.

In other words: SC doesn't actually deal with just the properties of an object while not knowing its origins.

If you think this is incorrect, explain why you think so.

according to darwin, complex modern eyes are just a resoult of selective preassure, this selective pressure forced "ancient eyes" to become better and more complex

In other words, he explained how the pattern of the eye can come about by natural means.
ie, he explained its origins. So the SC of the eye falls and stands only with knowing its origins. Meaning that the just the properties of the object aren't enough to determine if its SC or not. Correct?

in other words usefull eyes are more likely to appear and survive that a random mess of useless organs.

PS: Dembski holds that darwinism can't account for SC.

 

[PureX]

No.

Function refers to how something is being used.
Purpose refers to how something is intended to be used.

You can have function without purpose and you can have purpose without function.

They are not the same thing.

This isn't hard.

"Used" for what? There can be no "use" without there being a purpose.

But you are not going to listen to or consider anything I post, now. You are determined to fight no matter what. I can see that. You can have fun fighting endlessly and pointlessly with the creationists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Used" for what? There can be no "use" without there being a purpose.

But you are not going to listen to or consider anything I post, now. You are determined to fight no matter what. I can see that. You can have fun fighting endlessly and pointlessly with the creationists.

I do listen. I just don't agree.
I'll give you the same example that I gave to someone else in another thread concerning this topic.

I have this doorstop at home:

The purpose of this object, its intended use, is to place it in front of a door to prevent it from slamming shut by for example wind.

Its current function however, is to create weight on a broken puzzle piece that I glued.

That is not the purpose of the object, but it is how it is being used.

So its current function does not match its purpose.

I could have also gone to my garden and grab a random rock to use that to place on the puzzle piece.
That rock has no purpose. It doesn't have an intended use.

In that case, the function of the rock would be to create weight on the glued puzzle piece. It's purpose, or its intended use, would be nothing. The rock has no purpose, but it would be given function.

I could also take the doorstop and put it in a drawer to stash it away. Then it would have no function. It would just sit there.

So, in summary:

- You can have function without purpose (ie, using a random purposeless rock to create weight)
- You can have purpose without function (ie, a doorstop that isn't being used)
- You can have function AND purpose while they don't match (ie, using a doorstop for something other then stopping a door)
- You can have function AND purpose that match (ie, using the doorstop for which it is intended)



Purpose refers to intended use.
Function refers to actual use.

So, purpose is unchanging. The intended use is the intended use. It remains that way.
Function however, is dynamic. The function of something CAN change. I can use a doorstop for what it is intended (stopping a door) or I can use it as weight for puzzle repair, or I can use it as a weapon to smack someone upside the head, ... etc

I don't know how to explain it any clearer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Used" for what? There can be no "use" without there being a purpose.

But you are not going to listen to or consider anything I post, now. You are determined to fight no matter what. I can see that. You can have fun fighting endlessly and pointlessly with the creationists.

Of course there can be a use without a purpose. You are conflating human made things with natural things. Purpose implies intent by attempting to conflate the two you are attempting to claim an underlying intent when you do not have evidence for any such thing.