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. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,937
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    But you don’t know the exact probability given the hot spots, nor the probability of preserving that genetic change, nor the probability of getting the viral infection in the first place, 3billion is also just an estimate

    My point is that we don’t need to know the exact probabilities in order to conclude that “chance” is an absurd explanation,
    The argument is still pretty solid evidence for common ancestry despite the lack of robust math and exact probability (agree?)



    BTW I am aware that yesterday you made a few comments, I haven’t read them yet (but I will)
     
  2. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    16,035
    Ratings:
    +14,096
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The calculation concerns the probability of sharing ERV's without sharing common ancestors.
    It's a rather simple thing. I said it was a simplistic presentation. Obviously you can refine the numbers by taking actual statistics into account.

    But on the face of it, it is correct.
    It *can* insert anywhere and there are 3 billion potential insertion spots in primates.
    Some places will be more like then others in terms of preservation. For example, they are more likely to be preserved in non-coding DNA rather then crucial bits with very high conservation rates and you can certainly take that into account.

    Nevertheless, the point was just to show you that your claim was wrong.

    Not the exact ones, but a rather informed notion is a minimum.
    Otherwise it is very meaningless to talk about "chance". If you are totally uninformed, and thus are just appealing to ignorance, then you simply don't know. It could be 1 in gazitrillions, it could be 1 in 1 or it could be 0 (ie: impossible).

    How would you know?
    You have to at least have some rough idea.

    The problem here though, is that you are talking about probabilities / likelihood in context of SC.
    Which once again comes down to having to have at least SOME knowledge of origins.
    And as explained a gazillion times by now, the whole point of proposing SC is to find out about origins.

    So it can't be part of the criteria. Or it's a useless concept.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,937
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    What claim are you talking about? We seem to agree on this point, we seem to agree on that knowing the exact probabilities is not necessary to establish that the chances are very small


    Ok, but nobody is concluding SC “totally uniformed”


    .


    And you have been corrected, every time.

    All I have to do to falsify your claim is provide an example of something SC, whose origin is unknown…….agree?............so if I provide such example would you stop using the same argument ?
     
  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
    Since even you have conceded Demski's SC is a useless concept, what is the relevance of your question. It isn't just that the math behind Demski's SC isn't robust, it is flawed. Unless you have some ulterior motive, why would you insist on the use of a debunked concept to base your arguments.

    Are you at the same time claiming to understand any math behind all the theories you do accept? I can't make that claim. I couldn't begin to understand all the math used in cosmology for instance. I have to rely on descriptions and explanations of the written word. Are you now claiming that written description of theories is flawed?

    It is always a trick question with you. Not that you are any good at it. It is patently obvious when you are trying to trap someone with your "questions". Answering the affirmative to the question doesn't give one bit of support to the validity of Dembski's SC. It doesn't mean that theories that I accept are flawed. It doesn't make your used of debunked concepts--that is what Dembski's SC is, a debunked concept, not a theory. It doesn't have the mathematical validity, it assumes the existence of what it claims to explain and is an argument from ignorance.

    Your questions are intended to undermine your opponents and not support your claims, which clearly you cannot do.
    Is this a quote? If it is, you need to attribute it properly.

    I think that the probabilities of this can be calculated, though I have never tried.

    Still, cherry picking an example that is lightyears ahead of what Dembski has to offer with his SC might not be a good idea for you.
    I do disagree with point 2. The question is not whether the math is robust, it fails. You haven't established the quality of math in any theory, so using you as a criteria for rejection of a theory does not stand. I'm afraid that Dembski fails on several levels and you have ignored those when they have been pointed out to you.
     
  5. 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
    We didn't agree that it lacked robust math. It is based on flawed math.
    You are back to arguing in a gap which is just the argument from ignorance that you keep running from when it is pointed out to you.

    Your intelligent design was never science. It failed and died. Let it have some peace.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. rational experiences

    rational experiences Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    10,392
    Ratings:
    +627
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    As all humans do exist on earth... life's law biology is natural.

    Thinking says there is no science first and law is natural. Which means you own your one body human exact in law as the human.

    As a woman I see the history the Human man.

    Historic men were pretty nasty evil minded using inequality expressive behaviours as controller.

    Just humans and just men.

    Seemingly you ignore the human behaviour.

    Which began by men wielding design.

    Who built buildings first by use to design. As the first type of science was masonry. Involving design using wood and stone. I build. I construct.

    Just humans just men. The first type of use of design.

    Then theist man wanting new design expressed was as the machine.

    Machine was machine plus reaction inside that basically removed the pre body design of earths mass the presence of machine.

    Doesn't equate you're sensible as the designer.

    In that moment the use design mind of man was lost. As you virtually destroyed design use in that moment.

    So both machine and bio life was removed. Together.

    Machine was what you gave life to as the man. Energy to put into machine body to function. Life of machine. Then energy to be destroyed by the machine.

    I think you lost conscious mind.

    As man the God of machines life also had murdered his machine and his own life. In that exact position.

    In the same human only incident before and now on planet earth.

    Which historically you ignore today as you believe your intelligence has evolved.

    It proves it hasn't as you are still a very badly behaved man. Who purposely ignored his own human advice....science doesn't exist it's a chosen human only practice as the human.
     
  7. rational experiences

    rational experiences Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    10,392
    Ratings:
    +627
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    On earth humans say the backdrop is a flat plane.

    It's all just water oxygen.

    As back in time is up only and out...the spatial past backdrop when only a God as rock existed...back in time and out of time.

    We're not rock as a human as we didn't come out of back in time.

    Earths alight methane CH gases did.

    No man is God teaching as methane is anti life said the anti of CH rist arise arose arisen gas God earth spirit realisations.

    All human told stories that follow lots and lots of topics subjects all variants to tell the story why no man is God.

    Ignored as men ignorant of behaviour their own are exact.
     
  8. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    16,035
    Ratings:
    +14,096
    Religion:
    Atheist
    The claims concerning SC and the "probability" or "likelihood" of the "pattern" to be the way it is.
    As explained, you have to have at least a rough idea of how things come about to make any kind of assessment about the probability thereof.

    Otherwise, it is meaningless.

    So once again we are back to having knowledge about origins is part of the criteria of "SC", which completely defeats the purpose of the entire idea. Turning it into a useless concept.

    The problem is that you don't (want to?) understand the implications of what it means to have even only a rough idea of probabilities.

    Also, small hint: not having such knowledge, DOES NOT MEAN that it is unlikely (like you implied previously with the example of eyes before Darwin, where your "sophisticated list" of criteria included "it seemed unlikely").

    handwaving and doubling down on fallacies, does not yield a valid argument or refutation.

    Go for it.
    I've asked you this before on page 30 in all those posts to which you didn't reply.

    I have already asked you to provide such an example in the posts that you ignored so far.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,937
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    no I b}never concided that, why do you have the need to lie about what I said?

    .

    Maybe but that assertion (in red) has to be supported.


    No what i am claiming is that the lack of robust math is not enough to drop a concept/claim/theory /model/hypothesis

    And you haven’t explicitly disagreed with this particular claim, so it seems to me that we are on agreement? Right?


    no it is not a quote, (those are my words) all I am saying is that one can make probability cliams about ERVs (or anythign else) even if you can´t calculate the exact probability agree?


    The only alleged flaw that has been developed in this thread is the lack of robust math and I have answered to that criticism,

    The rest is “demski is wrong because I say so arguments” …………..if you have an other critique to demsky then develop your argument ………..
     
  10. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,937
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    ok, quote his math and then spot the flaws

    Nope, I am not arguing on gaps, positive, testable and falsifiable arguments have been provided, the fact that you are ignoring them, suggests that the arguments are good
     
  11. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,937
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    You don t know the origin of this text, you don’t know if there is an ID typing in his computer or if this text is being caused by a mouse crawling and stepping on the key board. (or me just typing random letters )

    But you can conclude that the text is SC because

    1 it has many letters and many possible combinations

    2 it has meaning

    3 only a small portion of the possible combinations would result in words and sentences with meaning

    4 combinations with meaning are equally unlikely than any other combination

    you dont need to know the origin of the text in order to conclude SC, all you ghave to do is show that 1,2,3 and 4 are true
     
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    64,515
    Ratings:
    +43,545
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You probably won't understand this, but I will give it a shot anyway.

    SC fails because it involves the abuse of an analogy. You just demonstrated that by applying it to a written message. Yes, SC may exist in a written person to person communication. It is used to transmit a message from one intelligence to another . That is not the case with DNA. There is no communication between two intelligences. DNA is merely a complex chemical that causes other chemical reactions. It works whether there is an intelligence behind it or not. As a result DNA and its products cannot be shown to be a product of intelligence or not.

    "It could be the product of intelligence and I don't see why not" is just an argument from ignorance.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  13. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,359
    Ratings:
    +6,666
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Wow! :eek:

    I am in awe as to what got to be most irrelevant and most lame example I have seen in this thread.

    How is any of that relevant to the origin of life or explain the complexity of life by design?

    Do you want gold metal for such a ludicrous example?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,359
    Ratings:
    +6,666
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Not only you don’t understand basic biology, let alone Evolution, you also don’t understand Probability.

    Probability required understanding and the use of Statistics.

    Statistics is recording of every occurrences, the frequencies of each occurrences, the sample size of the surveys, and any other information that may be obtained during surveys, and so on.

    Probability make use of those numbers to make informed estimate or prediction of it happening again, especially I never areas where most of tallied of occurrences have occurred frequently.

    If you had studied statistics before, then you should know a graph of normal distribution is.

    Any mathematicians and any scientists would make their best estimates or predictions in the middle section of the normal distribution, where the numbers of past occurrences appeared more frequently, then the estimates in the extreme ends, where it less likely but not outside of realm of probabilities.

    The point is that chances of something occurring again, are possible.

    What are outside of the realm of probabilities, are some invisible and supernatural agencies, like God or Designer, creating life or designing life some billion years ago. There are no observations of such agents or entities.

    And there are no such observations of such entities being responsible for life evolving or diversifying.

    So if you are really interested in discussing chance, then the chance of God or Designer being responsible for life, is extremely unlikely, hence highly improbable!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. 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
    This thread is about what would refute creationism and you have gone on for nearly 30 pages making claims for intelligent design without ever offering support. Your have the priority hold on providing evidence to support your claim, but you clearly don't know enough science or even enough of the pseudoscience of intelligent design to pose something cogent for other to examine. Instead, you spend most of your time trying to trap other posters into what you think are compromising positions that flip-flop your burden of proof onto them.

    I gave you that opportunity as an experiment and you jumped on it like it was made out of cowboy ribeye.

    The concept of specified complexity as used by Dembski is a superfluous add on to irreducible complexity to show that the origin of life is not just low probability, but impossible by natural means. Never mind that Behe never claimed a need for this add on in his presentation of irreducible complexity. But it isn't offered as a stand alone concept and cannot on its own show what it claims to do.

    Coupled with the fact that it is a circular argument that assumes the existence of a designer, because design specifications arise prior to actual design. A fallacy that many have pointed out to you and you have conceded cases like the evolution of the eye where an evolutionary explanation exists. Now you concede that it Dembski's SC only works where we don't have those explanations. A gap argument from ignorance.

    As to the math, you haven't shown any or shown that you have a basis to understand the math. I'm not a mathematician either, but I don't pretend to understand math at a level needed to support or challenge what Dembski has written on the subject. I won't even bother to ask you to, since that would be ignored anyway. However, there are mathematicians that have challenged Dembski and shown where his work is flawed.

    Your entire position seems more to keep the argument alive and try to shut up the opposition with traps so you can hand off the burden of proof you can't handle. Obvious and ham-handed attempts to redirect the argument by putting your opposition on defense. This is what I have come to consider typical creationist fare.

    Is it your position that honest debate means that you don't have a burden of proof and no obligation to clearly define your position, support it with reason and evidence and address what others point out?

    By the way, look up Landman and Rosenhouse if you want to see how flawed Dembski's math is for his useless concept.

    SC is going no where. Intelligent design is dead. Let it rest in peace.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,937
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    You are strawmaning the analogy , the correct analogy is

    1 text in a computer has meaning or function / DNA has meaning or function

    2 there are many possible combination of letters / there are many possible combinations of building blocks

    3 only a small portion of combinations would result in meaninfull words and sentences/ only a small portion of combinations of the building blocks would result in self replicating molecules

    4 combinations with meaning are equally likely than any other combination/ combinations that result in self replicating molecules are equally likely than any other combination
     
  17. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,937
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    Well it is relevant for the specific objection that I was addressing
     
  18. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,937
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    Maybe, but the whole point of my comment was to show that one can tell if something is SC or not, even if you dont know the origin of that thing .


    None of your comments is relevant for that particular point
     
  19. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,937
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian

    And I answered

    1 show that the first life was not SC

    2 show that SC doesn't imply a Designer

    If you do 1 or 2 you would falsify my possition .


    There is nothing circular in this argument, nobody is presupossing the existence of a Designer, nobody is appearing not gaps.......so none of your accusations is valid, nor has been supported.


    As for the math
    1 I already accepted and Granted the critics and already explained why I think those particular critics are not strong enough to trump the argument.


    Why don't you quote something from Landman or Rosenhouse that is in disagreement with anything that I have said ?
     
    #639 leroy, Nov 26, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2022
  20. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    64,515
    Ratings:
    +43,545
    Religion:
    Atheist
    How so? Please don't use terms and phrases that you don't understand.
     
Loading...