What would refute creationism?

[leroy]

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.

And, it's based heavily on logical fallacies

like what?

mathematically unsound concept.

Well you can´t calculate the exact probabilities, because that would require absolute knowledge about many variables , but you can estimate probabilities,

If this is not good enough for you, then why won’t you drop all the theories that are not supported by exact mathematical calculations.

.

 

[leroy]

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.

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

1 Amino acids can be ether right handed or left handed

2 it is equally to have ether one by chance

Therefore a random set of amino acids is expected to have around 50% left handed and 50% right handed amino acids.


The probability of having just left handed aminoacids can be calculated by dividing 1 / 2 ^n

n=the number of aminoacids.

If you have 100 amino acids then n=100

 

[gnostic]

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.

You making up fake scenario of things that didn’t happen.

You cannot use fake story to derive probability.

Probability come from real numbers acquired through stats (observations from real observed evidence, which are the statistical data).

As I said you in my last reply to you, before you can do the maths to calculate the probability of it occurring again, you would need observations of past “occurrences”, where the “occurrences” is mathematical or statistical term for “evidence”.

To give you example, the bureau of meteorology that forecast if there to be rains or not, they don’t simply making up if there are rain tomorrow or the day after.

The forecast of rain depends on many different readings, but the main one is the satellite images of the atmospheric pressures, eg the low pressures versus the high pressures.

Did you ever wonder why they show map of your country or region, eg Australia, United States, Western Europe, etc, which have indicators of L for “low”, H for “high” superimposed on the map?

These observations observed the wind directions. In the Northern Hemisphere, the low pressures are where winds are being blow in circles in anti-clockwise direction, and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.

The areas that show low pressures, are indications of unsettled weather, which would include possible chance of rain, or chances of high winds or chances of storm.

These areas of low pressures and high pressures, move about.

Now here is the probability of forecasting chance of rain, an example, let’s say you in Sydney, Australia. Now let’s say that Sydney is experiencing 5 of days of light wind, no rain or showers, and mainly sunny sky, due to the high pressures.

But the area of high pressure have been moving gradually south towards Melbourne, Victoria, while area of low pressure from Queensland, is gradually moving south Sydney. The meteorology department, can calculate when this low pressure will arrive in Sydney, bringing the rain from Queensland to New South Wales.

They don’t based their calculations on something they make up from the top of their head. They looked at satellite observations of the atmospheric pressures across Australia, from the present to the last 5 or 7 days. The speed of how fast areas of pressures are determine by satellite images, and in what directions they are moving.

So the bureau of meteorology can calculate when low pressures come or go to particular region (eg Sydney).

These past observations of weather patterns, can help with determining the chance of rain or not.

But I need to remind you, that low pressure don’t just mean shower or rain, it could also mean higher wind speed, eg gale-force winds, or storm-force winds, or combination of wind and rain.

That’s how Probability work, it relies on the numbers of statistics of past and present weather patterns moving in and out of your city, and they can calculate when and from where the low pressures come from.

Forecasting and estimating in probability are dependent on past observations recorded in statistics.

So if you don’t have the stats, you cannot do any calculations on Probability.

 

[leroy]

You making up fake scenario of things that didn’t happen.

You cannot use fake story to derive probability.

.

That is fine, because my intent in that particular comment was not to derive probability, my intent was to show that you don’t need the exact probability (the exact math) in order to conclude that an even if improbable.

So ether agree or refute this specific point. (which one the point of the original objection in your source)


If you have 100 other objections that is fine, just grant explicitly that the original objection in your source is not a strong objection

But the area of high pressure have been moving gradually south towards Melbourne, Victoria, while area of low pressure from Queensland, is gradually moving south Sydney. The meteorology department, can calculate when this low pressure will arrive in Sydney, bringing the rain from Queensland to New South Wales.

And following the logic of your original objection and your original source I could just appeal to the fact that for example you don’t know the exact speed and acceleration of the wind, so your probability is based on some unknown variables. ….

My only point is that your original objection form your original source has been refuted , if you have other refutations feel free to share them, but please first acknowledge that this particular refutation failed.


“Not knowing the exact math doesn’t imply that you can´t establish that the probability of something is low”

Please acknowledge that this particular statement is true, after you do that I will deal with the other 100 objections that you might have

 

[gnostic]

1 Amino acids can be ether right handed or left handed

2 it is equally to have ether one by chance

Therefore a random set of amino acids is expected to have around 50% left handed and 50% right handed amino acids.


The probability of having just left handed aminoacids can be calculated by dividing 1 / 2 ^n

n=the number of aminoacids.

If you have 100 amino acids then n=100

Excuse me, Leroy.

You are overthinking it.

There are over 500 different types of amino acids, but only 22 of these are associated with life, and only 22 sequenced or chained together to form into specific numbers of proteins.

Since biology is all about life, then they are talking about amino acids that relates to proteins, so only these 22 amino acids are relevant, when you are talking about biology.

These 22 amino acids are known collectively as the “proteinogenic amino acids”.

And since we talking about biology, about Evolution, or even about Abiogenesis, then there are no to look at the rest of hundreds of non-proteinogenic amino acids.

So of these 22 amino acids, they are all L-stereoisomers ("left-handed" isomers); none of them are D-amino acids (right-handed amino acids).

All proteinogenic amino acids are left-handed acids. We are really only interested in what occur naturally in life, and there are four main types of molecules or compounds that are essential to cellular structures (hence “cell”), and to life:

• Proteins
• Amino acids (eg DNA, RNA)
• Carbohydrates
• Lipids

What’s the point of doing calculations of left or right -handed amino acids, when we are only interested in amino acids that can form into proteins?

 

[gnostic]

And following the logic of your original objection and your original source I could just appeal to the fact that for example you don’t know the exact speed and acceleration of the wind, so your probability is based on some unknown variables.

Seriously?

What do you think those satellite images of atmospheric pressures are. They are evidence to how fast or slow the pressures are moving, to or from. You can calculate when a low or high pressures, based on present and past images (evidence).

You really don’t know much at all to argue with me.

Read up and learn, not just about weather forecast, but about the basic principles on probability and statistics, because you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Basically, you are shooting your in the foot, because you don’t know how to handle a pistol. It is a metaphor for you not understanding the subject you are arguing about, hence your uses of circular argument and argument from ignorance.

I really don’t have to argue with you, because you are self-defeating - your own opinions revealed that you don’t understand basic science and basic maths...hence the foot-shooting metaphor.

 

[gnostic]

My only point is that your original objection form your original source has been refuted , if you have other refutations feel free to share them, but please first acknowledge that this particular refutation failed.


“Not knowing the exact math doesn’t imply that you can´t establish that the probability of something is low”

Please acknowledge that this particular statement is true, after you do that I will deal with the other 100 objections that you might have

You haven’t refute anyone because you have no evidence for what you are arguing about.

And your knowledge of maths are just as incompetent.

The only one you refuted is yourself.

The only person you disprove, mathematically, is yourself.

You defeat yourself with your own ignorance on the subjects that you have been arguing about. No one need to refute you, and you definitely haven’t refuted anyone.

All anyone need to do is correct you and your false or faulty concepts and your illogical arguments,

And btw, it isn't robust maths that defeat Dembski and his SC, his equations for complexity are false.

You can only have “robust maths”, if you have the correct equations or the correct maths.

So you keep saying “I don’t require to have robust maths to be correct”, is an illogical argument, since you don’t even have a single working equation to work with.

It is funny and sad, at the same time, watching you, defeating yourself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

You do understand SC very well. I hope that catches on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just noticed something about this humble little thread of mine. It has surpassed the thread that it was based upon for responses. I thought that it would die an early death since creationists could not seem to get a handle on the idea that this is a question that must be answered for there to be evidence for creationism. @leroy appears to be the only one to give an extended attempt to find a test, though he does keep going to the worst of sources for his ideas. I do have to thank him for his contributions even if they have not fared well.

Ironically the other thread was recognized immediately by those that understand the sciences as a very rare valid question by creationists and example after example was given.

A comparison of these two threads shows us why one concept is science based and the other is pseudoscience.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

, 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”

You are playing semantic games here.

Point remains. To say that something is "unlikely" or "likely", you require knowledge to be able to make that determination.

And none of that knowledge has anything to do with the "pattern" of its complexity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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)

Once again, you implicitly acknowledge that knowing how something can originate is part of the criteria of SC.
In your stupid rose example, if one does NOT KNOW why there are only red roses, then you claim SC until someone comes up with an explanation.

And then suddenly it is no longer SC.

Just like before Darwin, eyes were SC because one didn't know how eyes can originate naturally.
Then Darwin explained just that.
And suddenly it was no longer SC.

In other words, one of the criteria of how something is SC is LITERALLY "we don't know how it can happen naturally through either "chance" or "physical necessity".




You keep on resisting this point, but in every post when you express that resistance, you confirm otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

like what?

Clearly you didn't pay attention these last 10 pages

 

[leroy]

Excuse me, Leroy.

You are overthinking it.

What’s the point of doing calculations of left or right -handed amino acids, when we are only interested in amino acids that can form into proteins?

Because naturally ocurring aminoacids are both left and right handed.

Any primordial "soup" would likely have both left abd right handed aminoacids.

So if you want to calculate the odds of getting a random sample of just left handed aminoacids you have to use my equation

 

[leroy]

So you keep saying “I don’t require to have robust maths to be correct”, is an illogical argument, since you don’t even have a single working equation to work with.

Maybe, but that would be a different objection , I am only dealing with your original objection , the one from your source, wich accused Demski of not having the exact math to calculate probability

My reply to that particular objection Is
So what? You don't need the exact math to stablish that something is unlikely.


So ether
1 Agree with me and drop that particular objection (and we can move to a different objection)

2 disagree, afirm that the objection is sound, and accept the conceciences (drop all the theories, hypothesis, models etc) that are not supported by exact math

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because naturally ocurring aminoacids are both left and right handed.

Any primordial "soup" would likely have both left abd right handed aminoacids.

So if you want to calculate the odds of getting a random sample of just left handed aminoacids you have to use my equation

Now this is a strawman argument on your part. It also shows that you are decades behind on your understanding of abiogenesis. There is a name for this. It is called the problem of chirality. We may also never know the right answer. Not because scientists can't find one. No, the opposite is the problem. There appears to be more than one possible pathway.

It is also a tacit admission that you are wrong about Dembski and others of his ilk. You have moved the goalposts to abiogenesis, an admission that you were wrong about your evolution claims..

 

[gnostic]

Because naturally ocurring aminoacids are both left and right handed.

I know that, but only 22 of the 500 are essential for life, and that 22 amino acids can form into certain types of proteins, and these 22 are all left-handed amino acids.

There are no points in talking about amino acids that don't form into proteins.

Maybe, but that would be a different objection , I am only dealing with your original objection , the one from your source, wich accused Demski of not having the exact math to calculate probability

Ah, no, I wasn't talking about Dembski's ignorance on probability, I was talking about YOUR CLAIMS on probability and chance.

You were the one who brought up probability and chance, not Dembski.

Dembski was claiming that he has equations that are the foundation of Specified Complexity, the made up first principle of SC; Dembski wasn't talking about Probability.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know that, but only 22 of the 500 are essential for life, and that 22 amino acids can form into certain types of proteins, and these 22 are all left-handed amino acids.

There are no points in talking about amino acids that don't form into proteins.



Ah, no, I wasn't talking about Dembski's ignorance on probability, I was talking about YOUR CLAIMS on probability and chance.

You were the one who brought up probability and chance, not Dembski.

Dembski was claiming that he has equations that are the foundation of Specified Complexity, the made up first principle of SC; Dembski wasn't talking about Probability.

Actually he was partially right. When amino acids form naturally they do make roughly fifty fifty mixtures of left and right handed molecules. But Dembski was not talking about chirality. He messed up by trying to use a bad argument against abiogenesis in his argument against evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if you want to calculate the odds of getting a random sample of just left handed aminoacids you have to use my equation

Who says it was random? There might be a very good reason for it, and not be random at all.

Wait, don't tell me you are appealing to ignorance again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually he was partially right. When amino acids form naturally they do make roughly fifty fifty mixtures of left and right handed molecules. But Dembski was not talking about chirality. He messed up by trying to use a bad argument against abiogenesis in his argument against evolution.

Even so, I think it's telling.
@leroy is once again appealing to ignorance as a criteria for his SC nonsense.

"we don't know how it came about" or "we don't know why this is so" LITERALLY is one of the criteria to label something as SC as per his own explanation.
He keeps coming back to it time and again.

And whenever such ignorance exists, he automatically equates that with "it's unlikely".
Even though I have corrected that silly mistake of his a bazillion times already. It's just in one ear and out the other. Assuming it even manages to get into the one ear, that is.

The criteria for how to label something SC:
- it's complex
- we don't understand it


I also consider it quite hilarious that he keeps claiming that first life was SC. Even though, as I pointed out multiple times already also, we do not have any examples of "first life".

 

[leroy]

In your stupid rose example, if one does NOT KNOW why there are only red roses, then you claim SC until someone comes up with an explanation.

And then suddenly it is no longer SC.

Just like before Darwin, eyes were SC because one didn't know how eyes can originate naturally.
Then Darwin explained just that.
And suddenly it was no longer SC.

In other words, one of the criteria of how something is SC is LITERALLY "we don't know how it can happen naturally through either "chance" or "physical necessity".




You keep on resisting this point, but in every post when you express that resistance, you confirm otherwise.

No, if we don’t know, then we don’t know and therefore nobody makes any claims on weather if something is SC or not.

You keep repeating the same straw man even after me having corrected you dozens of times

SC is not the default answer, SC is conclusion driven after knowing some stuff about roses and the natural laws that they follow ,

If additional knowledge is obtained, then you can change your previous conclutions on weather if something is SC or not