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:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    Your strawman seems to be

    Leroy knows that information from a text comes from a mind, therefore he inferes (wrongly) that genetic information also come from a mind (because both are information)


    That seemed to me to be your argument (which is a strawman).......if that is not your argument then I apoligice for misrepresenting your view
     
  2. 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
    You responded with the usual weak sauce.
    Assumes its conclusions.
    Assumes its conclusion.
    Self-refuting logical fallacies.

    LOL

    More weak sauce.
    How much does something have to crumble before you decide to let go and move on?

    Why don't you know them? Look them up yourself.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  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
    Genomes are full of non-coding DNA that seems to replicate as well as the coding DNA does. Apparently, DNA doesn't have to code for anything to self-replicate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,359
    Ratings:
    +6,666
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Look, Leroy.

    You were the one who brought up “probability” and “chance”, but it was very apparent to everyone you don’t understand Probability maths.

    So you need to at least understand some of the basics, including what they are used for and how they being used. Especially if you are going to talk about it.

    For you to say, it is not relevant, that’s BS, especially you were the one who brought it up in the first place.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    64,515
    Ratings:
    +43,544
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No, that appears to be Dembski's argument. That is why Demski fails, I really do not care what mistaken "logic" that you try to use. You were trying to defend Dembski, that explained why he was wrong and as result why you were wrong for trying to defend him.
     
  6. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian

    You are just making random claims and firing random shots, when you quote my comments you are expected to reply to the point made in such comment.

    I made the point that ID is falsifiable and provided 2 examples of things that would falsify

    So ether agree and conclude that ID is falsifiable, or refute my arguments.

    Any comment unrelated to the post that you are quoting will be ignored,

    If you think that they have an argument that refutes any of my claims, why wont you qoote such argument?

    Wouldn’t you expect the same thing from me?............... if I ever claim ohhh but “john smith” refuted your argument, wouldn’t you expect me to do quote the argument?

    Your dishonest “debate tactic” is:

    1 I make an argument

    2 you say that some guy refuted the argument

    3 I ask for a quote (so that I can see the alleged refutation)

    4 you refuse to provide such quote,


    I won’t answer to any of your comment until you apologize for your dishonesty, or quote the alleged refutation from Landman or Rosenhouse

    you have to quote my actual words and then quote the actual words from Landman or Rosenhouse that refute my claim
     
  7. 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 was wondering, do you think the inability to disprove means that your case is proven? Failing to prove that I do not cheat at cards does not make me a cheat.`
    It is no surprise to see intelligent design creationists arguments that don't indicate an extensive knowledge or awareness of the work of major contributors or how that work has fared. I try my best to keep up with the historical, current and even issues on the horizon with the science I am interested in. Part of the point of reading posts by you, @TagliatelliMonster, @gnostic and many others is to learn and see different perspectives on the material discussed. Many times, I learn about something here before I have read about it in the popular press or science journals. I don't see that from the creationist side. It is just different (or the same) iterations of the same old claims with the same old logical fallacies and often the same old tactics.
     
    • 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
    I'm done with you.
     
  9. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    That is very interesting, however i never claimed the opposite, nor any of my arguments is dependent is dependent on that claim to be false

    Stop making random arguments,
     
  10. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    Well I have never seen Demsky making that argument,

    But if he ever made that argument, then he is wrong,
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    64,515
    Ratings:
    +43,544
    Religion:
    Atheist
    That appears to have been his reasoning. His SC nonsense was just a smokescreen for the ignorant.
     
  12. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    How do you know that? I havent even elaborated any “probability” argument , and none of my argument depends on my ability to calculate probabilities.

    Ok perhaps you can quote my actual comment and explain why did I failed,

    The comment that you quoted deals with my claim on that “you don’t need to know the origin of something in order to know if it is SC or not”

    Do you have anything to comment on that claim?..............if not why did you quote my comment?
     
  13. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    No but the “natural laws” that X follows is part of its properties, for example “floating in water” is a property of wood, ice, ships and other stuff.



    following natrual selection is a propertiy of the eyes, eyes follow the laws of natrual selection this is a propery of the eyes and woudl still be it´s property even if the originated by some other mechanism
     
  14. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    , point 3 requires knowledge on how the object reacts to natural laws , before Darwin we thought that eyes reacten in a certain way, after Darwin we discovered that eyes follow “natural selection”
     
  15. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    @SkepticThinker

    This is heavy stuff, if you still don’t understand the concept of SC nor why is your objection on “origin” wrong, you have zero chance in understanding this

    Remember

    1 first understand what SC is

    2 then I will show why SC implies a designer

    3 then I will explain why the first life was SC

    We are stuck at point 1 (which is the easy point)

    So I will answer to your request, but I will not even bother to correct any objection based on a strawman


    --

    There are only 3 possible causes for the origin of something

    1 chance

    2 physical necessity

    3 design

    (or a combination of more than 1 option)


    Something that is SC by definition makes 1 and 2 very unlikely, living design as the only alternative.

    For example imagine that you are at a garden, and you notice that there are only red roses, (no white roses)

    You might wonder what caused this pattern of only red roses

    1 Chance: well if there are only 3 roses in the garden, then it could just be a coincidence, you could have white flowers too, but by chance alone roses happened to be red

    2 physical necessity: maybe those roses only have genes for “red” maybe only red flowers survive (natural selection) maybe there is a chemical in the soil that prevents white flowers to flourish

    3 design: the gardener likes red flowers, so he intentionally removes all white roses , or selective breathing etc.


    In order for the pattern to be SC, you need many roses (not just 3) so chance becomes unlikely, and red and white have to be equally likely , so if you have something like natural selection that prevents white flowers then the pattern would be SC

    Therefore the claim that SC can only come from a mind is almost true by definition
     
  16. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,359
    Ratings:
    +6,666
    Religion:
    Pi π
    That exactly the point as to what I have been saying to you, again and again, that whenever you bring up words like “probability”, “chance”, “likely”, “unlikely”, you are talking of PROBABILITY for your claim, except that you don’t have the probability calculated to support your uses of these words.

    You keep talking about how Natural Selection and Mutations are “unlikely”, but you have shown no probability maths with the statistical data/analysis to disprove either.

    BUT at the same time, you talk of Specified Complexity & Intelligent Design being “likely”, WHEN you again have no maths to support this claim.

    What you don’t seem to understand that you cannot talk of chance and probability, by just making up as you go, without relying on the statistics of past occurrences (eg evidence), because PROBABILITY cannot do any calculations of likely vs unlikely without the numbers (data) supplied by the STATISTICS.

    Statistics and Probability go hand in hand.

    Yes, I know that you didn’t “even elaborated any “probability” argument , and none of my argument depends on my ability to calculate probabilities”.

    You want to make all sorts of claims, but it is pretty clear to everyone you don’t have the evidence and you don’t have the maths skills to support your claims.

    If you are not going to show the maths & the statistical data as to what is probable and what isn’t probable, then stop using those words.



    Post 585:


    Post 602


    621:


    All 3 of these posts, demonstrate that you have no what you mean by “to have occurred by chance”, because if you did, you would and should know that maths are involved in the Probability.

    And that you keep saying the maths “isn’t relevant”, then you don’t understand Probability at all.

    Lastly, you keep saying the maths shouldn’t be relevant at all in Specified Complexity, but you keep forgetting that Dembski IS THE ONE SAYING THAT he have the equations and maths to support SC. So it is very relevant for us to be debating on Dembski’s maths.

    But you have admitted that neither SC, nor ID, have “robust maths”.

    But what you seemed to be incapable of grasping that maths cannot be “robust” anyway, if Dembski’s equations and maths are FLAWED or WRONG in the first place.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. SkepticThinker

    SkepticThinker Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2013
    Messages:
    16,937
    Ratings:
    +10,459
    Please stop talking down to me. I understand SC just fine.

    It is widely viewed as a mathematically unsound concept. It has not garnered any serious attention, or gained any traction in the scientific community, since first presented.
    And, it's based heavily on logical fallacies, which you've so aptly demonstrated in this very thread.
     
    #657 SkepticThinker, Nov 28, 2022
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2022
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  18. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    6,936
    Ratings:
    +547
    Religion:
    christian
    I admit in advance that I don’t have robust math to corroborate my claims, for example I can show that it is very improbable to have a random sample of say 10,000 aminoaicds where all of them are left handed , but I can’t calculate the exact probability

    The approximate probability would be 1 in 2 ^10,000 but this is not an exact number, because I have no knowledge of all the variables

    So

    Is this type of probability good enough for you, or do you only accept robust and exact math ?

    1 this is good enough then I think I can show that abiogenesis is improbable

    2 if you need robust math, and would only accept robust math, then one would wonder if you are willing to drop all the theories (including evolution) that are not supported by robust math




    No that doesn’t sound like me, I haven made such claims (not in this thread)

    No, I don’t have robust maths and I don’t think I need robust maths





    I didn’t say that math is irrelevant, I said that you don’t need the exact math’s in order to establish that something is improbable.

    For example you cant calculate the exact probabilities of a monkey typing random letters in a key board, and end up with a coherent sentence with say 10 words and 50 letters. But you can say that such this in very, very improbable.


    but you haven’t shown that his maths are flawed, or wrong, all you (and you source) did was to show that his math are incomplete and don’t account to all the variables.



    for example Imagne that I try to refute @TagliatelliMonster maths
    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


    and I write an easy showing that his maths are Incomplete, because he did considered hot spots, nor natural selection , nor the probability of getting a retrovirial infection in the first place

    My criticism would be correct, but @tag conclusions would still be true, “it is very improbable for 2 organisms to share ERVs by chance” the only problem would be that he doesn’t have the exact maths, so one can´t say exactly what are the chances.


    In other words, I dont claim that you or your source are factually wrong, just that they failed at refuting the conclusions or the central point of the argument,
     
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    64,515
    Ratings:
    +43,544
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Why didn't you check to see if any of your supposed abiogenesis problems have been solved or not? And yes, when you make the sort of claims that you do you will need strong mathematical support.

    None is the opposite of strong.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    19,359
    Ratings:
    +6,666
    Religion:
    Pi π
    You are still forgetting that the “maths” in Probability still require the “actual numbers” of OBERSEVED occurrences from the statistical data. Meaning you cannot do the Probability calculations without the figures from statistics.

    Probability cannot work without the stats (or statistical data or statistical observations).

    You need to show how you had derived “1 in 2 ^10,000”. Where are the stats?

    If you cannot tell me where you got the number from, then the only recourse I have, is to assume you just made the “numbers” up.

    If you making up some numbers, without the stats to back you up, then you are just making up any number that popped into your head. That’s not Probability.

    I know that you are not a biologist or any other scientist from some other fields, so I don’t expect you to show the evidence or the data, but I do, or I would expect you to cite your sources, some scientific models or the research papers from scientists (eg biologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers), as to where they got the numbers or calculations from.

    All you are showing - eg your “1 in 2 ^10,000” - that have no context, no stats or probability calculations, no sources.

    Where did you get the numbers from? Where the stats? How and where did you derive it from?

    If you invented that number from the top of your head, then you are basically just lying to us that it is probability.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...