1. 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!

Featured What would refute creationism?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Subduction Zone, Nov 3, 2022.

  1. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,360
    Ratings:
    +16,792
    Religion:
    Christian
    Aren't you ignoring the rest of my post? I thought you didn't do that?
     
  2. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    If you are willing to reject SC just because it is not supported by robust math, go ahead, would you reject all claims that lack robust mathematical support?............or do you make exceptins with stuff that that contradict your view?

    ... which of these points do you deny?
    1 Yes I agree there is no robust math supporting ID (nor evolution by natrual selection)

    2 the lack math is not a big of a deal

    3 one can say that something is too improbable to have occurred by chance, even if you dont know the exact probability (ERVs woudl be an example)
     
  3. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,360
    Ratings:
    +16,792
    Religion:
    Christian
    Actually, it is not my own personal claim. It is the claim of pretty much all of science.

    What you now seem to be saying is that despite the fact that Dembski's SC cannot be supported by the math, you are still going to use it as if it has value in a legitimate discussion. Much like using the ether to argue about chemistry.

    Is that sound?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,360
    Ratings:
    +16,792
    Religion:
    Christian
    Show me that not providing you with these posts negates the value of my advice, makes you correct or means that those posts do not exist.

    Show me.
     
  5. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    Where you making a relevant point? Apart from the point that responded to ? care to explain that point?
     
  6. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    Maybe, but you haven’t support it


    Yes I would argue that a concept can be valid even if it is not supported by robust math

    Do you disagree? Would you reject all the concepts that lack mathematical support?
     
  7. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,359
    Ratings:
    +6,666
    Religion:
    Pi π
    No, SC is useless because the explanations are weak and unfalsifiable (untestable).

    Maths isn’t the only place it failed. It failed in the whole Scientific Method. That’s not an opinions.

    It failed to be falsifiable, so that disqualified SC from being a hypothesis (which is the 1st half of Scientific Method - the formulation of the hypothesis).

    And it failed to be tested. Testing the hypothesis, is the 2nd half of Scientific Method. There are no testable evidence, and there are no original experiments, that support SC.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,360
    Ratings:
    +16,792
    Religion:
    Christian
    From what I am reading, SC has been concluded to be valueless in the discussion. Pretty leaving the argument of intelligent design empty and without even the pretense of a basis.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,360
    Ratings:
    +16,792
    Religion:
    Christian
    I have supported it. You have supported it for me. Others have offered support. What else to do you need? How many times does McCoy have to say "He's dead Jim"?


    Yes I would argue that a concept can be valid even if it is not supported by robust math

    Do you disagree? Would you reject all the concepts that lack mathematical support?[/QUOTE]What does my agreeing with your general question give you in support of a question on the specific topic of Dembski's SC? That seems like a tactic to me and I thought you were putting yourself in the position that is above those sorts of things.

    Dembski's SC is a useless concept that isn't supported by math and has been identified as an argument from ignorance. Anything that only applies to gaps in our knowledge is arguing from ignorance. A point that you have conceded more than once on this thread.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,360
    Ratings:
    +16,792
    Religion:
    Christian
    Where in all of this have you shown us that evolutionary theory doesn't have the support of mathematics and is on the same level as Dembski's SC?

    I must have missed those many, many posts.

    Were those posts to be named later also where you showed that a failed basis in math is not big deal and again, that it is the same for the theory of evolution?

    Your defense seems to have gone from supporting the OP to trying to poke holes in the existing science.

    Don't you think that is always where these discussions seem to go? I wonder why that is.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,360
    Ratings:
    +16,792
    Religion:
    Christian
    Apart from the fact that this illustrates evidence against your claim that you do not ignore what others post, the points stand and remain unanswered by you.
     
  12. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    SC is just a pattern with specific characteristics, if something with those characteristics

    1 was caused by a non-mind then ID would be falsified

    2 if the pattern lacks some of those specific characeristics, it would be “not SC” and therefore the design inference would be falsified,

    You yes we are talking about a testable and falsifiable concept.

    For example something could seem to be SC (given the current evidence) and then future evidence could show that in reality it is not SC. (there it is falsifiable)
     
  13. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Out of a hat and into the blue.
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    22,360
    Ratings:
    +16,792
    Religion:
    Christian
    What you suggest is a very common pattern exploited by creationists. There is a gap in our knowledge and creationism is used to fill that gap until new evidence is discovered that actually fills the gap.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    You didn’t answer my question, do you reject all the models that lack robust mathematical support? Or do you only reject those that contradict your view.

    For example one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favor of evolution (common ancestry) is ERVs the argument is “humans and chimps share many ERVs in the same spot, which is unlikely to have happened by chance” (therefore common ancestry is the best explanation)…………..of course nobody has a mathematical model that shows exactly how unlikely is it, but it is still a good argument, despite the absence of robust math supporting the argument.

    In other words my claims are

    1 yes I agree that Demski lacks robust mathematical models supporting his view

    2 this is not a big of a deal, (many valid theories/hypothesis/models etc. also lack robust mathematical support.)


    If you disagree with me on point 2 then you would have to drop evolution and many other well accepted scientific stuff
     
  15. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    Maybe but the point of the comment that you are responding to is to show that ID is falsifiable

    So ether refute that point or agree with it, please when you respond to my comments try to address the actual point in such comment.

    Your Gaps accusation has to be justified,
     
  16. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,937
    Ratings:
    +10,459
    That poster did actually answer your question.
    This is why conversing with you is so very difficult.
     
  17. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    In that comment you said that you don’t know what would falsify “nature did it” and then you simply explained why is it that you don’t know it.

    If you made a different point, I honestly miss it, I dint ignore it on purpose.
     
  18. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    16,035
    Ratings:
    +14,096
    Religion:
    Atheist
    It is not unsupported.
    You're the one proposing SC and have spend 10+ pages showing us how it is a useless concept and in fact just fallacious.

    Fallacious concepts aren't useful, other then to serve as examples of useless concepts.

    You proposed it. If you think it is useful, show us an instance where it was useful and yielded reliable results.

    Won't be holding my breath
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    16,035
    Ratings:
    +14,096
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Not a single hypothesis in abiogenesis amounts to "nature did it".
     
  20. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    16,035
    Ratings:
    +14,096
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The probability of sharing exact ERV's without common ancestors where the initial infection took place, is rather easy to calculate.

    Simplisticly put:

    About 3000-ish known ERV's in the genome.
    About 3 billion potential insertion spots.

    Sharing an ERV without common ancestry: 1 in 3000*3 billion.
    Sharing 2 ERV's without common ancestry: 1 in (3000*3 billion)²
    Sharing 3 ERV's without common ancestry: 1 in (3000*3 billion)³
    etc

    You can further refine this calculation by also taking into account "hot spots", where insertion is more likely then in other spots, based on statistics etc.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
Loading...