• 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!

What would refute creationism?

leroy

Well-Known Member
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.
Yes you need knowledge about roses and the laws that they follow, and knowledge about the pattern (how many roses are there, are they all red? Etc)

Is this supposed to be an objection?
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
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..


You have moved the goalposts
Jajaaja that is funny, my very first post (well the second) was already about abiogenesis, with regards to evolution all I have done is grant he theory of evolution


In the post that you are replying to all I did was to show the equation of getting just left handed amino acids by chance. the point that I made was that even though we can’t calculate the exact odds, we can estimate the probability with such equation

So ether agree or refute that particular point.


If you have an alternative theory or hypothesis that doesn’t claim “chance did it” feel free to share it, but this would be irrelevant to the particular point that I made in the comment
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
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.

.
Yea but those 22 left handed aminoacids don’t simply appear , no natural mechanism creates “just” the 22 left handed (LH) amonacids that you need,

Once you have a soup full of aminoacids (both left and right handed) it is unlikely to have a chain of say 10,000 aminoacids that are all LH, having a chain that has just the aminoacids that you need is even more unlikely.

Again the point is, that even though I can’t show the exact math, one can still conclude that it is unlikely
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
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.

Then nothing is SC until it is known already to be designed. :rolleyes:

So how this whole thing stinks?

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

Then SC is a useless tool incapable of detecting design in things of unknown origin.

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

"additional knowledge" then being: having a natural explanation.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes you need knowledge about roses and the laws that they follow, and knowledge about the pattern (how many roses are there, are they all red? Etc)

Is this supposed to be an objection?

It is an objection to your SC nonsense.

Remember why you are even presenting it: to detect artificial design origins when the origins aren't yet known.

So in the case of the roses (or the eye), the origins of it (why only red roses / how did they eye come about) are unknown. Then the question is: how do you detect artificial design (a gardener only wanted red roses / god created the eye).

Now you are saying it must already be known for the SC-model of detecting design to work.

Derp di derp derp.

I asked you previously why SC could be concluded about the eye before darwin. I asked you to list the criteria that warranted that conclusion. Remember your "sophisticated" answer?

- it's complex
- it seems unlikely (= appeal to ignorance of its origins. "unknown" is translated to "unlikely").

Then Darwin explained it.

Suddenly SC is no longer warranted.



You have utterly failed time and again to show how SC is capable in a reliable way to detect artificial design in things of unknown origins.

You have, instead, successfully shown how the entire thing is utterly useless in doing exactly that.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
like what?
Like all the ones that have been pointed out to you over and over in this thread. The same ones that you keep asking about over and over as though they've never been pointed out to you before.
Like you're doing right now, which is one of the reasons discussions with you never get anywhere.


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.

.
No, no. The actual math that Dembski has presented in support of his idea about specified complexity is unsound. I.e. His calculations are not based on sound reasoning, so his calculations are unreliable or unacceptable.

Not a Free Lunch
Dembski's Latest: "Life's Conservation Law", and why it's stupid | Good Math/Bad Math
Design Arguments for the Existence of God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

And again there's the plain fact that his ideas have stagnated since he first proposed them. They have not furthered any scientific research. They have not gained any traction in the scientific community in all that time. Why do you think that is, and why do you keep ignoring this fact?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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
The objection isn't that Dembski doesn't have the exact math to calculate probability. The objection is that the math Dembski has attempted to use is UNSOUND.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Then nothing is SC until it is known already to be designed. :rolleyes:[

Nothing could be said to be SC until we determine if the pattern has the specific characteristics mentioned earlier


Is it really that hard to understand?




Then SC is a useless tool incapable of detecting design in things of unknown origin.

You don’t need to know the origin , all you need to know if the pattern has the characteristics that I mentioned earlier.

For example you need to know if

1 there are many roses (say a few hundred)

2 if all the roses are red

3 if white roses are equally likely than red roses

Note that you don’t need to know the origin of the roses………………..so please would you stop repeating the same mistake over and over again?



"additional knowledge" then being: having a natural explanation.
Additional knowledge could refute any of those 3 points. you dont need a naturalistic expalnation, all you need is refute any of those 3 points

For example maybe a deeper observation shows that there are only 3 roses, perhaps a closer look shows that there are also white flowers, perhaps it is genetically impossible (or very unlikely) for white roses to appear in that specific population etc

Or could also be the other way around perhaps something seems tobe“no-SC” but aditinal knowledge could makes us change the conclusion.

I honestly don’t understand why do you find this so hard to understand,
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jajaaja that is funny, my very first post (well the second) was already about abiogenesis, with regards to evolution all I have done is grant he theory of evolution


In the post that you are replying to all I did was to show the equation of getting just left handed amino acids by chance. the point that I made was that even though we can’t calculate the exact odds, we can estimate the probability with such equation

So ether agree or refute that particular point.


If you have an alternative theory or hypothesis that doesn’t claim “chance did it” feel free to share it, but this would be irrelevant to the particular point that I made in the comment
And you ignored that even then that you were using a strawman argument. No one propose that all lefthanded amino acids arose by chance.

And this is after you laid the biggest stink bomb ever of an argument from ignorance along with vague references to how warm it was outside and whether it is raining or not.

Free debating technique: Try to learn the difference between "weather" and "whether".

And remember the rules, no debating abiogenesis until you can demonstrate your evolution claims. It does not matter what your excuse for bringing up abiogenesis was. You merely recognize your error now and are trying to make up for your error.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Nothing could be said to be SC until we determine if the pattern has the specific characteristics mentioned earlier


Is it really that hard to understand?

Oh we understand that. It is you that does not understand that you are using a circular argument.



You don’t need to know the origin , all you need to know if the pattern has the characteristics that I mentioned earlier.

For example you need to know if

1 there are many roses (say a few hundred)

2 if all the roses are red

3 if white roses are equally likely than red roses

Note that you don’t need to know the origin of the roses………………..so please would you stop repeating the same mistake over and over again?

You are the last one to talk about repeating mistakes over again. How is a failed analogy supposed to help you, aside from giving you an excuse to wave your arms.

Additional knowledge could refute any of those 3 points. you dont need a naturalistic expalnation, all you need is refute any of those 3 points

For example maybe a deeper observation shows that there are only 3 roses, perhaps a closer look shows that there are also white flowers, perhaps it is genetically impossible (or very unlikely) for white roses to appear in that specific population etc

Or could also be the other way around perhaps something seems tobe“no-SC” but aditinal knowledge could makes us change the conclusion.

I honestly don’t understand why do you find this so hard to understand,
What points? There are no points to refute. Just give up. You are only making Dembski look even more Dumbski.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
It is an objection to your SC nonsense.

Remember why you are even presenting it: to detect artificial design origins when the origins aren't yet known.

So in the case of the roses (or the eye), the origins of it (why only red roses / how did they eye come about) are unknown. Then the question is: how do you detect artificial design (a gardener only wanted red roses / god created the eye).

Now you are saying it must already be known for the SC-model of detecting design to work.

Derp di derp derp.

I asked you previously why SC could be concluded about the eye before darwin. I asked you to list the criteria that warranted that conclusion. Remember your "sophisticated" answer?

- it's complex
- it seems unlikely (= appeal to ignorance of its origins. "unknown" is translated to "unlikely").

Then Darwin explained it.

Suddenly SC is no longer warranted.



You have utterly failed time and again to show how SC is capable in a reliable way to detect artificial design in things of unknown origins.

You have, instead, successfully shown how the entire thing is utterly useless in doing exactly that.


Well The field of roses has an unknown origin , so one would

1 observe the roses (are they all red)…. If Yes then add a checkmark
(

2 count the roses (do we have hundreds of roses) )…. If Yes then add a checkmark


3 understand the laws that roses follow (genetics for example), Are white roses as likely as red roses?)……….. you can make a simple experiment, take a few sample of roses, (or seeds) plant them and see if white and red roses appear at a 50/50 ratio )…….. If Yes then add a checkmark


If after your research, observations and experiments you ended up adding 3 checkmarks then you can conclude SC

IF one check mar fails, then it is “NO-SC”

Additional knowledge could make you add or remove a checkmark, for example maybe you discovered that natural selection removes white roses, maybe you discover that the tool that you use to observe doesn’t detect “white” maybe additional knowledge shows that there are only 3 roses, surrounded by mirrors (you observed the same roses many times)


Note,that you don’t need to know the origin of the roses a priori, you don’t need to know if they were designed before concluding SC
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
And you ignored that even then that you were using a strawman argument. No one propose that all lefthanded amino acids arose by chance.

Irrelevant, I am not accusing anyone for making that claim; the problem is that you are not following the conversation


And remember the rules, no debating abiogenesis until you can demonstrate your evolution claims. It does not matter what your excuse for bringing up abiogenesis was. You merely recognize your error now and are trying to make up for your error.




Ok a few comments so that you can remember

1 You made the OP asking what would refute creationism

2 I asked, what exactly do you mean by Creationism

3 you answered “use any type of creationism that you whant”

4 I picked origin of life (life was created by an intelligent designer)


If whith creationsism you where referring to “anti evolution” why didn’t you clarify it when I asked?


demonstrate your evolution claims.
To my knowledge I haven made any “evoluition claims” that you would disagree with, but feel free to quote such claim
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Like all the ones that have been pointed out to you over and over in this thread. The same ones that you keep asking about over and over as though they've never been pointed out to you before.
Like you're doing right now, which is one of the reasons discussions with you never get anywhere.



No, no. The actual math that Dembski has presented in support of his idea about specified complexity is unsound. I.e. His calculations are not based on sound reasoning, so his calculations are unreliable or unacceptable.

Not a Free Lunch
Dembski's Latest: "Life's Conservation Law", and why it's stupid | Good Math/Bad Math
Design Arguments for the Existence of God | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

And again there's the plain fact that his ideas have stagnated since he first proposed them. They have not furthered any scientific research. They have not gained any traction in the scientific community in all that time. Why do you think that is, and why do you keep ignoring this fact?
Ok I picked the second paper randomly

and I saw nothing that contradict anything of what I have said…….
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Irrelevant, I am not accusing anyone for making that claim; the problem is that you are not following the conversation

No, it still appears to be relevant, even though I was not following along You still screwed up and used a strawman argument and have not admitted that.

Ok a few comments so that you can remember

1 You made the OP asking what would refute creationism

2 I asked, what exactly do you mean by Creationism

3 you answered “use any type of creationism that you whant”

4 I picked origin of life (life was created by an intelligent designer)

That does not appear to be the case. You just began to argue about abiogenesis after you had your rear end handed to you to wear as a hat. If you want to discuss abiogenesis since it is a huge moving of the goalposts there is on rule that one must follow first. One must first admit that evolution is a fact.

And we know that you were not debating abiogenesis. You used Dembski's arguments which apply to life.

If whith creationsism you where referring to “anti evolution” why didn’t you clarify it when I asked?

Why should I? You were the one that changed your argument after you lost. You never set out to refute abiogenesis.

To my knowledge I haven made any “evoluition claims” that you would disagree with, but feel free to quote such claim

No one is playing that game with you. When one does that you just deny again. You don't get to make that demand. You merely have to apologize for changing the topic and then we can move on.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well The field of roses has an unknown origin , so one would

1 observe the roses (are they all red)…. If Yes then add a checkmark
(

2 count the roses (do we have hundreds of roses) )…. If Yes then add a checkmark


3 understand the laws that roses follow (genetics for example), Are white roses as likely as red roses?)……….. you can make a simple experiment, take a few sample of roses, (or seeds) plant them and see if white and red roses appear at a 50/50 ratio )…….. If Yes then add a checkmark


If after your research, observations and experiments you ended up adding 3 checkmarks then you can conclude SC

IF one check mar fails, then it is “NO-SC”

Additional knowledge could make you add or remove a checkmark, for example maybe you discovered that natural selection removes white roses, maybe you discover that the tool that you use to observe doesn’t detect “white” maybe additional knowledge shows that there are only 3 roses, surrounded by mirrors (you observed the same roses many times)


Note,that you don’t need to know the origin of the roses a priori, you don’t need to know if they were designed before concluding SC
Sorry, but that is an unwarranted conclusion that has no evidence for it. Do you know why? Because you are making an ad hoc argument and not proposing a reasonable test for your hypothesis.

What you just proposed is an argument from ignorance.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
The objection isn't that Dembski doesn't have the exact math to calculate probability. The objection is that the math Dembski has attempted to use is UNSOUND.
According to your source (the second) the objection is that he misrepresents how evolution is suppose to work,

But so what

1 I am not denying evolution

2 I am not depending on these math to make my arguments

3 the author of your paper, didn’t showed the “correct maths” ether. In other words, he didn’t presented a mathematical model that shows that information evolves through evolution by natural selection ……………So if anything the only conclusion is that nobody (creationists, nor evolutionists) can prove their claims mathematically
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, it still appears to be relevant, even though I was not following along You still screwed up and used a strawman argument and have not admitted that.
Apologize for what? I simply gave an example on how to calculate probabilities.

One must first admit that evolution is a fact.
I have the feeling that we already had this conversation, yes evolution (common ancestry) is true beyond reasonable doubt (is this what you mean by fact?)



And we know that you were not debating abiogenesis. You used Dembski's arguments which apply to life.

I only used a concept that demsky uses (specified complexity)……….


Why should I? You were the one that changed your argument after you lost. You never set out to refute abiogenesis.

You sound like a 5yo

I already told you why I picked abiogenesis

1 I asked you what you mean by creationisms

2 you said that I can pick any “version” of creationism

3 I picked the origin of life (mainly because I don’t reject evolution, nor common ancestry )
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but that is an unwarranted conclusion that has no evidence for it. Do you know why? Because you are making an ad hoc argument and not proposing a reasonable test for your hypothesis.

What you just proposed is an argument from ignorance.
No it is not an argument from ignorance

what prevents you to make objective test sand observations to see if point 1,2,3 is true…………….?

If you don’t have enough knowledge or tools to test each of the 3 points, then “I don’t know” would be the conclusion, you don’t conclude SC in this scenario ………. You only conclude SC if you have good reasons to think that 1 2 and 3 are true
 
Top