What would refute creationism?

[Dan From Smithville]

Didn’t you noticed the questionmark”?”

I asked, what would falsify the claim that life came from none life naturally?


Because based on all the evidence and observations that have been made, aminoacids don’t naturally arrange themselves in the correct pattern and order that would produce say a “self-replicating molecule” that would then evolve in to something that we would call “life”

Since there is no evidence of supernatural causes for life, or even what that really means, the only choice for the use of science is the study of natural causes for life. You can't refute scientific findings, explanations or conclusions based on belief. Turning to that would result in all sorts of nonsense refuting science and we wouldn't be on the internet chatting about it under those circumstances.

RNA exists with variants that are self-replicating.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sounds like a pathetic excuse to avoid my arguments

What exactly is your argument? Don't hold back.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did answer to your request


As I explained earlier, my hypothesis is that amino acids don’t naturally arrange in to self-replicating molecules, which is why I suggest that life can’t come from none life naturally.

As an analogy, given that ink doesn’t naturally organic itself in to meaningful words and sentences, the existence of a paper with meaningfull words and sentences written with ink, would indicate ID.

This is confirmed by all observations that have ever been made.

The hypothesis would be falsified if, you show that under “X” or “Y” circumstance things are different and amino acids naturally organized in a pattern such that self replicating molecules would form

.......
So it what way did I failed to meet your request in the OP?

Of what value is your hypothesis? Is there an hypothesis regarding the self-organization of amino acids? It looks as if you have made some random hypothesis based on a trivial awareness that amino acids are found in living things and then concocted a half-baked, meaningless hypothesis that is assured of a positive test, since amino acids are already not known to self-replicate. It is a straw man.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok,

My hypothesis would be:

Life was caused by an intelligent designer

Evidence:

Life has (and has always had) the attribute of specified complexity. / things that have this attribute are likely to be caused by a mind. (obviously this is an oversimplification, the argument should be developed properly)

With specified complexity I mean that there are many possible ways in which amino acids can be organized, (many possible combinations) but only one or few combinations would produce self-replicating molecules/cells…………. For example there are many ways in which ink can be organized, but only few possible combinations would produce meaningful words and sentences therefore words and sentences have specified complexity

Potential falsifications

1 show that life doesn’t has this attribute of SC (perhaps life was simple in the past)

2 show that things can be SC and not be designed. (show that nature can produce SC)

So please acknowledge that I fulfilled your request, form the OP, if not, then what am I missing?




If you ever dare to provide any links, please do not send random links

I would apriciate if

1 you quote my specific words

2 provide the link

3 quote the portion of the source that contradicts / refutes what I said.

Any link that doesn’t follow these instructions will be ignored.

There is no evidence for specified complexity. It is a failed concept. Claiming it as an attribute of life requires that it first be established as a valid concept. Then it has to be shown to be an attribute of life. Since neither has been done, your hypothesis fails on the face of it.

It doesn't even seem like you understand what has been claimed regarding specified complexity. All Demski is doing is claiming specified complexity reveals agency without establishing any such thing.

Hypotheses based on specified complexity revealing intelligent design are all just balloon juice.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok lets go steo by step

I succeded in providing a hypothesis and explain what would falsify it….agree?

As far as I underststood my burden is to

1 explain what I mean by SC (apparently my definition was not good enough)

2 explain how can I test if something is SC

Is there any burden that I have to deal with?

You did not. And for all the reasons that everyone, everyone, has provided.

Establish that specified complexity is conceptually valid. Demonstrate that it is an attribute of life. Demonstrate that it indicates intelligent agency in the origin of life. It hasn't been done by people that actually have training and experience with science, so frankly, I don't give you much hope for success.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientists say that they don’t know how the building blocks organized in the correct order.

That isn't an example of agreement with your claims.

The point of an analogy is to explain a point. … is my point clear? Care to explain it with your own words

It wasn't a good analogy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok lets start with point

My hypothesis is that life was caused by an intelligent designer.


Why aren't you accepting this statement as a hypothesis ? Why do you think the statement fails to be a hypothesis ? , you could argue that the statement is wrong, but it would still be a hypothesis.

should we move to point 2 ?

You're just making a claim. An hypothesis is a proposed explanation built upon some present, but limited amount of evidence. There isn't even limited information of a designer or of the intelligence of that designer. In fact, using the evidence of anatomy and physiology for a number of diverse organisms, there is evidence to call into question the intelligence of a designer if it were possible to determine one exists or existed.

 

[leroy]

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.



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.


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.

Again I am not claiming that Demski (or me) is right beyond reasonable doubt like in a court room, nor that ID is a scientific theory.


All I am saying is that ID is based on testable and falsifiable premises that are probably true.

P1 SC is likelly to be caused by a mind

P2 the first life was SC

Therefore the first life is likelly to have come from a mind


The argument is testable and falsifiable, and evidence for the premises have been provided

mean, you attempted to refute them, sure, but ended up where you started from - an argument from ignorance/personal incredulity.

Ok the quote my specific response and explain why you think is based on ignorance or personal incredulity

 

[leroy]

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

Again QUOTE (copy paste) your post and my response

 

[leroy]

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.

Is there anything in the original comment that you would reject ?

or the theory that you reject

I don't reject the theory of evolution

 

[leroy]

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.

Do you disagree with anything in the original comment?

 

[leroy]

Since there is no evidence of supernatural causes for life, or even what that really means, the only choice for the use of science is the study of natural causes for life.

Look @Subduction Zone I found and example of "argument for ignorance "

"Since there is no evidence for the supernatural, then we most take natural explanations "

You can't refute scientific findings, explanations or conclusions based on belief. Turning to that would result in all sorts of nonsense refuting science and we wouldn't be on the internet chatting about it under those circumstances.

RNA exists with variants that are self-replicating.

That is very interesting, but you didn't answer to the question that you are quoting


What is the point of quoting a question if you are not going to answer it?

The question is
What would falsify the claim "life had a natural origin"

 

[leroy]

There is no evidence for specified complexity. It is a failed concept. Claiming it as an attribute of life requires that it first be established as a valid concept. Then it has to be shown to be an attribute of life. Since neither has been done, your hypothesis fails on the face of it.

It doesn't even seem like you understand what has been claimed regarding specified complexity. All Demski is doing is claiming specified complexity reveals agency without establishing any such thing.

Hypotheses based on specified complexity revealing intelligent design are all just balloon juice.

Ok why you think SC is a failed concept?


SC is just a description pattern with specific characteristics, what could possibly be invalid in this concept?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Yes.

You ignore my replies. Why should I waste any more energy and time to just repeat myself?

Sorry, but through your intellectual dishonesty and such behavior, you have lost the privilege of my attention.

You may now fly away while dishonestly claiming victory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

See this is the kind of intellectual dishonesty I'm talking about.
I just spend 10+ pages doing exactly that, along with other people.

There's this saying in belgium that says "A donkey doesn't trip over the same stone twice".

By now, I've proverbially tripped over a dozen times already.
So I'm done.

Clearly it amounts to nothing at all and I'm just wasting time.

Instead, I will just invite you to reread the conversation starting from your first mention of SC.
I have nothing more to add. I'ld just be repeating myself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All Demski is doing is claiming specified complexity reveals agency without establishing any such thing.

Yep.

In fact, in @leroy very first "clarification" post on this topic, he literally stated that "SC can ONLY come from a mind".

I then pointed out that this is something that would require evidence. That it seems like a conclusion from something that isn't mentioned. I never received an answer. It was just ignored.

Apparently we are expected to just blindly accept this assertion and he feels like he is immune to having to support such claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

P1 SC is likelly to be caused by a mind

Support this claim.

P2 the first life was SC

Support this claim.

Therefore the first life is likelly to have come from a mind

At this point: completely unevidenced assertion.

The argument is testable and falsifiable, and evidence for the premises have been provided

You don't even have an example of frist life.
So how could p2 EVER be supported????

Even if SC is a valid concept (which you haven't demonstrated at all, if anything - you have demonstrated the opposite), you would still require and actual example of first life to make any kind of assessment about it.

Which you don't have.

So your claim here is again patently false.

Ok the quote my specific response and explain why you think is based on ignorance or personal incredulity

As explained ad nauseum already, your entire case revolves around not knowing the origins of something you deem to be "complex".

This is supported by the fact that you acknowledged that eyes were SC before Darwin explained it, but not after Darwin explained it - eventhough the properties and attributes of eyes didn't change at all.

And eyes were YOUR OWN EXAMPLE also.

This whole thing is just a bad joke, isn't it?

And here I am again, being sucked into this exercise in futility of trying to make you come to grips with your fallacious reasoning.

Why do I even bother.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again QUOTE (copy paste) your post and my response

Nope. Corrections only.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

SC is just a description pattern with specific characteristics

That is clearly not true.

If it were true, then eyes would still be SC after Darwin explained how they could come about naturally.
Knowing how eyes evolved naturally, doesn't change anything about the descriptive pattern and specific characteristics of eyes. Eyes are eyes. They work how they work and have the desing that they have regardless how they came about.

So, either of the following must be true:
- There are unstated criteria to qualify something as SC, other then the actual properties / attributes of the object (like you are claiming here)

or

- things that are SC can have natural origins also and thus SC doesn't help at all to detect artifical design origins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look @Subduction Zone I found and example of "argument for ignorance "

"Since there is no evidence for the supernatural, then we most take natural explanations "


That is very interesting, but you didn't answer to the question that you are quoting


What is the point of quoting a question if you are not going to answer it?

The question is
What would falsify the claim "life had a natural origin"

Can you correct your spelling and grammatical errors? There are so many that I cannot make heads nor tails out of this post.