What would refute creationism?

[leroy]

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.

Ohhh

Can you quote any comment that I ignored?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ohhh

Can you quote any comment that I ignored?

Yes. Many. But I don't feel like going back in the thread.
So let's just see how you deal with the 3 posts that followed the one you are quoting instead.

 

[leroy]

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.

I already told you

1 first understand the meaning of SC

2 then I will explain why the first life was SC

3 then I will explain why SC implies a designer


This is the order that I suggest for our conversation

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ohhh

Can you quote any comment that I ignored?

I don't think anyone appears to be playing your games.

Now if I was the only one saying that you act this way your doubt might have been justified. But it appears that everyone is fed up.

 

[leroy]

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.

r.

@Subduction Zone note how I quoted his specific words and note how will I explain why he is wrong ....(hope to have the same courtesy from you)


You are wrong , I didn't say that before darwin eyes where SC , I said that before darwin there where good reasons to think (wrongly)that eyes are SC


See the difference?


Darwin discovered new things about the eyes (eyes follow natural selection) wich is why the previous conclusion on eyes being SC where wrong in light of this New knowledge.

All you are doing with this example is showing that SC is testable and falsifiable

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone note how I quoted his specific words and note how will I explain why he is wrong ....(hope to have the same courtesy from you)


You are wrong , I didn't say that before darwin eyes where SC , I said that before darwin there where good reasons to think (wrongly)that eyes are SC


See the difference?


Darwin discovered new things about the eyes (eyes follow natural selection) wich is why the previous conclusion on eyes being SC where wrong in light of this New knowledge.

All you are doing with this example is showing that SC is testable and falsifiable

No. It is not worth the bother. Corrections only until you start regularly acknowledging when you are demonstrated to be incorrect.

 

[leroy]

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.

Again darwin discovered new atributes of the eye, he discovered that eyes follow natural selection, therefore in light of this evidence eyes are not SC (as previously thought)

That eyes follow natural selection is a properly of the object, this is true independently of the origin of the eye.

Do you understand you mistake ? (((

 

[leroy]

No. It is not worth the bother. Corrections only until you start regularly acknowledging when you are demonstrated to be incorrect.

Which is hard, given that you are not even telling ne which claims are incorrect

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is hard, given that you are not even telling ne which claims are incorrect

No, it is easy. You don't need to go over your past mistakes. You will make them again. And you will make new ones.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you disagree with anything in the original comment?

I'm not playing your chess.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Again, I'm not playing your chess.

I don't reject the theory of evolution

Your posts indicate that you don't understand the theory of evolution and you reject it out of ignorance. Details regarding the timing of evolutionary events is not a challenge to the theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are wrong , I didn't say that before darwin eyes where SC , I said that before darwin there where good reasons to think (wrongly)that eyes are SC

What were those reasons?

List them.

Darwin discovered new things about the eyes

He did not, actually.
But let's put a pin in that for a second.

First list what those "good reasons" were to think eyes were SC before Darwin.

 

[rational experiences]

A basic human question for any self.

If you believe a creator or designer created you...would you give your life to a human controlled machine experimental study?

No says the egotist I'd be harmed.

So you know. Machine advice is faje. As design you claim builds not removes.

Yet you want to know what you believe you want to be advised about.

The designer. Who what conscious form is it. Just by a human presence and human motivation to think.

You are baby humans.
Sperm microbe not a human yet of human type.
Ovary not a human yet of human type.

Two designers that formed your owned presence.

You claim you are designed as designers man woman adult humans also were not your type of cell body growth or mind status.

Fact. Babies children body types aren't adults. Change constantly to become the human adult.

Now all humans die. If we all died in the exact same moment no argument would exist.

None of us would exist.

So conscious adult knows we do not nor can we express our type of being consciousness before ourself...the human.

Yet as a baby memory you argue as the human two bodies do always exist before your owned self.

Consciousness hence contiunally contradicts it's owned reality. Giving status then arguing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again darwin discovered new atributes of the eye

He did not.

, he discovered that eyes follow natural selection

That's not an attribute.
That's a mechanism by which eyes can come about.
So you are saying that the mechanism by which something comes about, is part of the criteria that qualify something as SC or not?

That eyes follow natural selection is a properly of the object

It is not.

, this is true independently of the origin of the eye.

//facepalm....................

That IS the origin of the eye.
"independeently".... for crying out loud.

Do you understand you mistake ? (((

Yes, but it's probably another mistake you are thinking of.
My mistake that I see is thinking that you would actually follow true on having an intellectually honest conversation for once.

I don't know why I got my hopes up. I must be very naive.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

No you didn't. I will add a misunderstanding of logical fallacies to my list of things you do not understand. Thank you.

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

Science doesn't operate on belief. That would make it pseudoscience. Pointing out that fact is not ignorant or an argument from ignorance. What you claim is a pseudoscience that includes a basis in what you believe and an manipulation from ignorance of what you do not understand. Your position is and always is about trying to poke holes in science that your record shows you don't understand. More of a position from ignorance made up of numerous arguments to that effect.

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

Interesting, yet dismissed with a hand wave. Evidence exists for self-replication in important molecules of life. But of course, you don't have an interest in what works.

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"

Since we do not have a theory of abiogenesis, nothing would falsify it. You cannot falsify a theory that hasn't been formulated. Do you think that you can?

We do have some hypotheses that need testing. So far, there isn't any solid evidence completely knocking out any of the valid contenders. Certainly not any evidence from belief your belief in the supernatural.

This is just more of the creationist zero point game. Keep the argument alive regardless of how often it is shown to be baseless.

What number of your string of 100 posts are you on now?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which is hard, given that you are not even telling ne which claims are incorrect

You ignore what others post. Do you think that goes unnoticed?

 

[rational experiences]

If a human says I speak on behalf of two humans then a pre human type...human not present but similar genetics. Thesis must impose two bodies again.

So don't use human in the topic or subject.

Would your science human consciousness accept your own non presence?

Of course it wouldn't. As you impose you're a type of God explaining your creation

As you put human ownership into the behaviour...I theory.

Concept hence if I act like a God I'll find it.

Science says a monkey is the monkey. You cannot impose your ownership. As you don't exist.

Therefore as no man is God nor is a human a God.

Pretending the monkey is like a human then what is before the monkey very much like it bodily but not it?

As the theist is claiming by order I observe a less and less body presence like a human until they believe a human body disappears into a single cell.

 

[gnostic]

I did supported my assertion

No that’s not supporting the assertion:

All I am saying is that maybe "random variation + NS" is not the main and most important cause for evolution.

That’s is just another assertion. You are just making another claim.

If you were “SUPPORTING” your many “assertions”, you would provide the one or more of the following:

1. Cite a peer-reviewed and tested paper or more, that back your assertion.
2. Provide the necessary evidence, experiments & data.

Since, you are no scientist, your best bet is to use option 1, because option 2 required hard works from scientists.

You didn’t do either of them, so your assertion is “unsupported”, that was just another one of your unsubstantiated claims.

 

[wellwisher]

And again, I appreciate this but try to cut down on the nonsense. This thread exists to see if creationists can generate any scientific evidence at all for their beliefs.

To do so you must first make a.model of creationism. The model needs to be falsifiable if you want to claim to have scientific evidence for creationism. That is how.science works.

I used to be a development engineer, doing what is called applied science. Applied science has to be more in touch with reality than theoretical science; evolutionary theory. If I needed to make a new type of widget, it needs to hold up under reality conditions as well as be cheap and reproducible on the factory floor. I can't use theoretical materials, unless I first develop these first to be useful and cheap.

An applied scientist needs to extrapolate both pure and theoretical science, to make tangible things at the production level. If the theory is not sound enough, this next step cannot be done. This approach to science; development, pushes and pulls theory to the next level or not. Development is therefore a way to rate theory in terms of any theory's ability to be extrapolated. Science often pats itself on the back for a theory, much too early. Life is a moving target for the development engineer. Customers cannot be left floating in the air.

In terms of the evolutionary theory, how can I use that theory to make a better human? This may be the type of goal assigned by management. Evolution should be a good place to start some preliminaryR&D, since the theory is about how biological change occurs, with the materialist approach about the bio-hardware. How will I apply this theory to get the end result that I seek, which is a better human?

The theory is pretty good at cataloging the past, but it is not designed well enough to know the future and/or achieve a specific future goal. It is not factory safe. It is more designed like a game of chance. If we try to use it to tell the future, we will need to use the same math as gambling casinos. That approach may be useful for cataloging gaps in the past, but I need to get out of the catalog, since what I need is not yet in the catalog.

This casino approach is not my first choice, since ti will be like me buying a bunch of lottery tickets; range of experiments, with the hope of winning the better human jackpot, since the theory is not fully causal and is not well designed to work for the future. I do not have the time to throw dice and hope to win the lottery. I may need to dump this approach or improve the theory, so it is more useful to me. It could be improved by adding a water side analysis, to the organic side analysis, to explain the dice with logic.

Before I do that, let me try the Creationist theory instead. Is this theory useful and scalable? This theory is less based on material science and more based on addressing the imagination and human nature; neural conscious environment. A better human could mean humans that are more healthy or fit. However, a better human could also mean humans who are better people, in the neural character sense.

Instead of making a new human from scratch, why not use the theory on current humans; since the theory says humans have will and choice. One application of the theory is to show people the proper place for their ego. The ego is often the source of most problems, since each ego subjectivity and objectivity seeks to become the center of its own universe, which can divide people and cause conflicts. The conflict causes the ego to dig in or try to expand.

Creationism uses the theory of a deterministic God, who is above all humans. He is the one who has brought us to this place in space and time, based on a logical plan. Instead of allowing the ego to try to become the center of its own little subjective universe, what would happen if we make the ego a satellite around the theory of God, who by definition, made us all by some form of causal determinism?

We do not need to start life from scratch to form a better human, but to simply use what we already have in terms of a sequences of deterministic events that led to today. This will help the ego find a better way to relate to reality and to each other. This approach will use the ego, to evolve the ego, via its innate will and choice.

I will need volunteers to see if this can work, be scaled and finally go into production; religions. Science is good at the material world but religion is more about the neural world view of consciousness. I like having both tools in my development science tool box.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I used to be a development engineer, doing what is called applied science. Applied science has to be more in touch with reality than theoretical science; evolutionary theory. If I needed to make a new type of widget, it needs to hold up under reality conditions as well as be cheap and reproducible on the factory floor. I can't use theoretical materials, unless I first develop these first to be useful and cheap.

An applied scientist needs to extrapolate both pure and theoretical science, to make tangible things at the production level. If the theory is not sound enough, this next step cannot be done. This approach to science; development, pushes and pulls theory to the next level or not. Development is therefore a way to rate theory in terms of any theory's ability to be extrapolated. Science often pats itself on the back for a theory, much too early. Life is a moving target for the development engineer. Customers cannot be left floating in the air.

In terms of the evolutionary theory, how can I use that theory to make a better human? This may be the type of goal assigned by management. Evolution should be a good place to start some preliminaryR&D, since the theory is about how biological change occurs, with the materialist approach about the bio-hardware. How will I apply this theory to get the end result that I seek, which is a better human?

The theory is pretty good at cataloging the past, but it is not designed well enough to know the future and/or achieve a specific future goal. It is not factory safe. It is more designed like a game of chance. If we try to use it to tell the future, we will need to use the same math as gambling casinos. That approach may be useful for cataloging gaps in the past, but I need to get out of the catalog, since what I need is not yet in the catalog.

This casino approach is not my first choice, since ti will be like me buying a bunch of lottery tickets; range of experiments, with the hope of winning the better human jackpot, since the theory is not fully causal and is not well designed to work for the future. I do not have the time to throw dice and hope to win the lottery. I may need to dump this approach or improve the theory, so it is more useful to me. It could be improved by adding a water side analysis, to the organic side analysis, to explain the dice with logic.

Before I do that, let me try the Creationist theory instead. Is this theory useful and scalable? This theory is less based on material science and more based on addressing the imagination and human nature; neural conscious environment. A better human could mean humans that are more healthy or fit. However, a better human could also mean humans who are better people, in the neural character sense.

Instead of making a new human from scratch, why not use the theory on current humans; since the theory says humans have will and choice. One application of the theory is to show people the proper place for their ego. The ego is often the source of most problems, since each ego subjectivity and objectivity seeks to become the center of its own universe, which can divide people and cause conflicts. The conflict causes the ego to dig in or try to expand.

Creationism uses the theory of a deterministic God, who is above all humans. He is the one who has brought us to this place in space and time, based on a logical plan. Instead of allowing the ego to try to become the center of its own little subjective universe, what would happen if we make the ego a satellite around the theory of God, who by definition, made us all by some form of causal determinism?

We do not need to start life from scratch to form a better human, but to simply use what we already have in terms of a sequences of deterministic events that led to today. This will help the ego find a better way to relate to reality and to each other. This approach will use the ego, to evolve the ego, via its innate will and choice.

I will need volunteers to see if this can work, be scaled and finally go into production; religions. Science is good at the material world but religion is more about the neural world view of consciousness. I like having both tools in my development science tool box.

That all sounds very ad hoc.

Here are the important questions you need to answer:

What predictions does it make? And how could those predictions possibly refute it?