What would refute creationism?

[leroy]

Specified Complexity don’t even qualify being a “hypothesis”, because SC isn’t falsifiable, isn’t testable, and certainly haven’t been tested.

Dembski keep asserting that “complexity” implies “design”, therefore “design” would point to a “Designer”, and yet he shown no evidence to support this A-to-B-to-C logic.

well in my opinion he does support how SC implies design.............
It is your job to read his work and spot his mistakes

 

[leroy]

Really? You did not understand your error? Once again, the argument from ignorance applies when one only has a lack of evidence against.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? I presented evidence that supported my claim. Therefore I was not merely saying "Well , dug gee Tennessee, there is no evidence against my beliefs". When one makes that claim that is often because they have made the error of using an unfalsifiable claim. To have evidence one needs a testable hypothesis in the first place.

Argument from Ignorance

'Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” '

<bolding mine>

My argument did not even refer to a claim that there was no evidence against it. My argument was once again based upon evidence. Your argument was solely based upon a lack of evidence again.

I can from all sorts of claims that have no evidence against them. And I predict that you would reject each and every one of them.

Again I think I have supported my claims with positive evidemce.----------- if you disagree I would be happy to provide such evidence.

Just quote any of my claims that you think has not been supported with positive evidence

 

[leroy]

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.

Are you goining to ignore the last replies that I made in your comments?

 

[leroy]

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.

But still no one has quote a mistake from me, you are just speculating and assume that I must be wrong at some point, because in your mind ID is wrong

 

[leroy]

Many other posters have already done exactly that.

Dembski proposed SC many years back, and failed in backing it up. It's based mainly upon an argument from ignorance and/or personal incredulity.

What's a "fanatic atheist?"

again
I challenge to :

1 quote my actual words

2 explain why is that fallacious


If I do that when people make mistakes in this fórum , why can´t I recive the same courtesy……………?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But still no one has quote a mistake from me, you are just speculating and assume that I must be wrong at some point, because in your mind ID is wrong

In my mind ID is neither right or wrong. It is just your understanding and I have different one.
So now show that my understanding is wrong as my understanding is that I don't know what objective reality really is.

Your position is simple. Nobody can act differently than you because your position is objectively true of the world as such. And all I do is to do it differently than you. I don't know.

 

[SkepticThinker]

well in my opinion he does support how SC implies design.............
It is your job to read his work and spot his mistakes

Um, that poster just did exactly what you're asking here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

again
I challenge to :

1 quote my actual words

2 explain why is that fallacious


If I do that when people make mistakes in this fórum , why can´t I recive the same courtesy……………?

I said:
Dembski proposed SC many years back, and failed in backing it up. It's based mainly upon an argument from ignorance and/or personal incredulity.

You are espousing a belief about SC here, and I just pointed out which logical fallacies it is based upon. Many other posters have done the same, repeatedly, in this thread.

 

[leroy]

I said:
Dembski proposed SC many years back, and failed in backing it up. It's based mainly upon an argument from ignorance and/or personal incredulity.

You are espousing a belief about SC here, and I just pointed out which logical fallacies it is based upon. Many other posters have done the same, repeatedly, in this thread.

You are expected to deal with my arguments (or demskies arguments) it is very lazy and convenient to simply assert “argument from ignorance” without any support

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are expected to deal with my arguments (or demskies arguments) it is very lazy and convenient to simply assert “argument from ignorance” without any support

Here is the problem. I am write something and that alone makes is fact. leroy, you are as a fact less than nothing.

So beyond using words, you have to show that it is so beyond the words.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are expected to deal with my arguments (or demskies arguments) it is very lazy and convenient to simply assert “argument from ignorance” without any support

Several posters have already thoroughly explained to you why it's an argument from ignorance and/or personal incredulity.

The fact that Dembski's ideas about SC haven't gained any traction or supporting evidence since he first proposed it, speaks volumes. His ideas were also completely demolished in a court room.

 

[Subduction Zone]

again
I challenge to :

1 quote my actual words

2 explain why is that fallacious


If I do that when people make mistakes in this fórum , why can´t I recive the same courtesy……………?

It is time to move on. Almost everyone did that here. You ignored the corrections or did not understand them. When one repeatedly does that there is no need to honor such demands.

Own up to how you were wrong about Dembski and perhaps you may be able to demand that for your next big mistake.

But it seems right now that almost everyone has you on "Corrections only" mode.

 

[leroy]

Several posters have already thoroughly explained to you why it's an argument from ignorance and/or personal incredulity.

and such claims where refuted


I presented a case, based on the stable and falsifiable premises, supported by positive evidence , if anything you are expected to deal with such evidence (that I would be happy to repeat)

But accusing m for making an argument from ignorance is fallacious wrong and dishonest,

The fact that Dembski's ideas about SC haven't gained any traction or supporting evidence since he first proposed it, speaks volumes. His ideas were also completely demolished in a court room.

This is the type of comments that show that you don’t even know whatyou are talking about, in a court room you have to prove stuff “beyond reasonable doubt “ I don’t claim to have that degree of certainty.

The OP is about presenting a testable and falsifiable model, which I did

 

[leroy]

It is time to move on. Almost everyone did that here. You ignored the corrections or did not understand them. .

Ohhhhhhhhhhh and can you quote any correction that I have ignored?

 

[SkepticThinker]

and such claims where refuted

They weren't refuted. I mean, you attempted to refute them, sure, but ended up where you started from - an argument from ignorance/personal incredulity.

This is the type of comments that show that you don’t even know whatyou are talking about, in a court room you have to prove stuff “beyond reasonable doubt “ I don’t claim to have that degree of certainty.

Notice how I pointed out that his ideas have not gained any traction in the science community OR in a court of law? Of course not, you just focused on the one you thought would help you.

The OP is about presenting a testable and falsifiable model, which I did

You didn't, and neither did Dembski. Which again, is the reason is ideas about SC haven't gained any traction in the scientific community since he first proposed them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ohhhhhhhhhhh and can you quote any correction that I have ignored?

Yes, the last one the post that I made and that you just responded to. You ignored the correction.. I knew that you would.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is an oversimplification on how science works, nobody drops a model just because it fails a test, (otherwise you would have to drop evolution, the big bang, and pretty much everything else)

For example you will not drop evolution and the tree just because you found a gorilla fossil that is 6 million years older than predicted (https://phys.org/news/2016-02-gorilla-fossil-humans-million-years.html) ……… you would simply add this to the list of incorrect predictions and trust that incorrect predictions are statistically insignificant compared to the correct predictions ………..science is not as rigid as you seem to believe, one doesn’t drop complete scientific models just because they failed a test


As I said YEC fails, not because they missed a test, but because the ratio between fails and succeeds is heavily inclined towards the failures.

Finding fossil evidence that indicates a evolutionary divergence may have occurred earlier than previous evidence indicated isn't testing the validity of the theory of evolution. It is details of the evolution of a particular taxon. The predictions applicable to this wouldn't be whether humans and other diverged in their evolution, but when.

You keep speaking about science as if you had some authority to do so, but in all this time, you don't seem to have learned much about the science or the theory that you reject.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well that is easy, the discovery of a natural mechanism that can create life from none life, would refute ID.. (or the idea that life was created by an ID)

What would falsify your claim that life came from none life naturally?..................who is ready for 100 posts without a direct answer?

ID is religious pseudoscience that does not require evidence to reject, since it has failed to establish any factual basis for its claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well evolutionists havent ether,............we simlply dont know how to get a modern eye, from a bunch of skin

But that is ok,scientists are looking for an explanation and someday the might have an answer.

The evolution of eyes is well-established based on the evidence. There are a number of reviews of the subject available even to those that are fairly scientifically illiterate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok I will save us both hours of our time, and simply include this in the list of unjustified assertions. // once you show that your assertion is true, I will remove it from the list

Is this to be the first of your 100 posts?