What would refute creationism?

[leroy]

His. Math. Is. Unsound.

So what? None of my arguments is dependent on his math being correct

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

You're not?

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

What you are doing is relying on an idea for which the foundational math is unsound.

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

All the author of the paper would have to do to demonstrate that Dembski's concept is mathematically unsound, is to demonstrate that Dembski's math is unsound. The author doesn't need to "correct" the math or should that evolution is correct, or whatever else. Maybe the "math" for SC just doesn't work because it's just a plain old bad concept.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So what? None of my arguments is dependent on his math being correct

Dembski's argument is. You know, the one you're trying to use here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apologize for what? I simply gave an example on how to calculate probabilities.


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?)





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




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 )

I may need new glasses since I did not see an apology there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Yes, you used an argument from ignorance again. You demonstrated that you do not understand the concept. You have no testable hypothesis, you have no evidence, you only have an argument from ignorance.

 

[gnostic]

So what? None of my arguments is dependent on his math being correct

Leroy, it isn’t just Dembski’s maths being seriously flawed, his entire SC model in which other mathematicians think it is pseudo-mathematics - the explanation part of the model where he required to explain SC are “unfounded” and “unfalsifiable”.

Unfalsifiable means that it is untestable, and therefore cannot be tested.

Unfalsifiable would disqualify Specified Complexity from being a hypothesis, which would mean you cannot carry out the first part of the Scientific Model, which is the Formulation of the Hypothesis.

And if you cannot formulate the hypothesis, you cannot even carry out the second part of Scientific Method - the Testing of the Hypothesis.

Unfalsifiable concept can never become science.

As to the mathematics, he was the one who presented his equations for complexity, and real experienced mathematicians trashed as being pseudo-mathematics. They prove that Dembski’s equations are unfounded, hence useless to SC, which means SC is also unfounded and unsound.

That Dembski persisted on pushing Specified Complexity on to non~scientific community and readers, mean he presenting pseudoscience garbage.

That you are still advocating for SC today, mean that you are as illogical as Dembski.

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

Leroy, Leroy, Leroy.

Molecular biology and biochemistry required understanding of chemistry than that of mathematics. Hence you need more understanding of chemical bonding and chemical reactions, than mathematical equations.

And clearly you don’t understand organic chemistry anymore than you understand mathematics.

 

[Jose Fly]

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

This is what frustrates people like me, when trying to debate you. I'm pretty sure you've been provided real time, directly observed examples of evolution generating "information" (i.e., functional genetic sequences), yet here you are acting as if no one has ever seen it happen.

 

[leroy]

You're not?

NO

What you are doing is relying on an idea for which the foundational math is unsound.

I am just borrowing his concept of SC

All the author of the paper would have to do to demonstrate that Dembski's concept is mathematically unsound, is to demonstrate that Dembski's math is unsound. The author doesn't need to "correct" the math or should that evolution is correct, or whatever else. Maybe the "math" for SC just doesn't work because it's just a plain old bad concept.

MY point is that nobody (evolutionists nor creationists) can show that their model is true with “sound math”

So ether the lack of sound math is not a big of deal (a model doesn’t fail for that reason) or you most reject both ID and evolution

 

[leroy]

I may need new glasses since I did not see an apology there.

Yep, and you didn’t see the question mark ether , you definitely need those glasses.

Why should I apologize?

A straw man is when you wrongly represent your opponents view, I didn’t do that, I didn’t even tried to represent anyone’s view

 

[leroy]

Yes, you used an argument from ignorance again. You demonstrated that you do not understand the concept. You have no testable hypothesis, you have no evidence, you only have an argument from ignorance.

It is very easy to be a fanatic atheist like you, all you have to do is claim “argument from ignorance” without any justification, and suddenly you win

 

[leroy]

Leroy, it isn’t just Dembski’s maths being seriously flawed, his entire SC model in which other mathematicians think it is pseudo-mathematics - the explanation part of the model where he required to explain SC are “unfounded” and “unfalsifiable”.

Unfalsifiable means that it is untestable, and therefore cannot be tested.

Unfalsifiable would disqualify Specified Complexity from being a hypothesis, which would mean you cannot carry out the first part of the Scientific Model, which is the Formulation of the Hypothesis.

And if you cannot formulate the hypothesis, you cannot even carry out the second part of Scientific Method - the Testing of the Hypothesis.

Unfalsifiable concept can never become science.

SC: is simplly a pattern with some specific characteristics, You can falsify the claim that something is SC by simply showing that the pattern lacks any of those characteristics

Why is this so hard to understand, having the correct math would be a nice bonus, but they are not indispensable

As to the mathematics, he was the one who presented his equations for complexity, and real experienced mathematicians trashed as being pseudo-mathematics. They prove that Dembski’s equations are unfounded, hence useless to SC, which means SC is also unfounded and unsound.

Evolutionists have also failed to provide sound math, so by your logic you should also send evolution to the trash……………or you can use a little bit of common sense, and adkowledge that the lack of sound math is not a big of a deal.


SC simply means that the pattern

1 has meaning or function (or some objective order)

2 it has many parts and many possible combinations

3 only a small portion of combinations would have a function or a meaning

4 all possible combinations are more less equally likely

For example this text is SC because ithas all 4,

1 it has meaning (it has meaningful words and sentences)

2 there are many possible combinations of letters

3 only a small combination of letters would produce a text with meaning

4 all combinations are equally likely (if I type random letters, I am equally likely to type “dogs” or “jafr”

It would be nice to have sound math and calculate the exact probabilities, but you don’t need them, you don’t need exact math in order to conclude that it is unlikely to type random letters, and end up with a meaningful sentence.

Leroy, Leroy, Leroy.

Molecular biology and biochemistry required understanding of chemistry than that of mathematics. Hence you need more understanding of chemical bonding and chemical reactions, than mathematical equations.

And clearly you don’t understand organic chemistry anymore than you understand mathematics.

Maybe, but do you grant my point?

You don’t need the exact maths in order to conclude that it is unlikely to have a chain of LH by chance.

If you want to argue that you have a sec ret mechanism , that doesn’t relly on chance, feel free to share it, but that would be a different argument, and a different objection………………..please acknowledge that the point above in red is true

 

[leroy]

This is what frustrates people like me, when trying to debate you. I'm pretty sure you've been provided real time, directly observed examples of evolution generating "information" (i.e., functional genetic sequences), yet here you are acting as if no one has ever seen it happen.

Yes evolution can create functional genetic sequences, I don’t deny that, and haven’t said anything that implies that I would disagree with that statement

The point of the comment that you are responding to, is that evolution is still a good solid theory even in the absence of “sound maths”

In other words I am defending evolution

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes evolution can create functional genetic sequences, I don’t deny that, and haven’t said anything that implies that I would disagree with that statement

The point of the comment that you are responding to, is that evolution is still a good solid theory even in the absence of “sound maths”

In other words I am defending evolution

Huh? Are you familiar with the field of population genetics? It involves a ton of math.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is very easy to be a fanatic atheist like you, all you have to do is claim “argument from ignorance” without any justification, and suddenly you win

No, the concept has been explained to you way too many times. You are relying on a lack of evidence against without any evidence for. That is an argument from ignorance.

If you remember the example that I gave to you a long time back that you mistakenly called an argument from ignorance because there was no evidence against my claim that failed because there was evidence for my claim.

You have no evidence for your claim therefore you are using an argument from ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep, and you didn’t see the question mark ether , you definitely need those glasses.

Why should I apologize?

A straw man is when you wrongly represent your opponents view, I didn’t do that, I didn’t even tried to represent anyone’s view

Sorry but you did when you used your argument about the chirality problem. Wasn't that explained to you? I am pretty sure that it was.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans on a self formed planet in space states the God body planet had formed in evolution. As it revolved...revolution. Cooled. Cooling changed burning mass.

No man is God.

A volcano released gases into space beginning the heavens. No man is God.

Evolution of gases. No man is God.

A planet rock.
A heavens once burning gases evolved to cold clear.

Evolution cold clear gas.

A sun burning mass owned light. It's self destructive mass not a planet.

It doesn't evolve.

Laws in space are a contradiction.

Earth we hence name as it's creator identity as it's not a sun mass.

It's body does not evolve.

Theists ask where did life come from.

State a reaction. Isn't evolution either.

A reaction on earths body...isn't evolution.

A story said once earths garden and man the scientist had come from out of the eternal. Was stuck with nature couldn't return to spirit naturally.

Origin earth life.

He built giant pyramids as he wanted to go back to where he theoried he'd come from. The eternal. Proving the machine hadn't brought him into existence.

A reaction.

He changed both earth bases and heavens mass. By pyramid reaction.

Eternal spirit then sent out animals and the origin human father mother. He had set off stars fall. It ended all life on earth.

Man of god science had caused it by machine and it's why he's possesed today believing a machine it's reaction invented life by a human man's thesis.

As my story is real.

Men said I came back to life from being a dead human. They returned living from out of the eternal body...after star hit earth again killing off dinosaurs.

After density of cloud cooling returned above....walked out..crossed over.

We came from spirit eternal.

 

[rational experiences]

Russia star Nuke one origin human instant eradication out of life.

100 years gone. Is one human life span.

So two humans now are living by sex one humans life surviving.

Why young children grow thinking I'm woman owning man's body or I'm man owning woman's body.

As it's real.

Theists human can say I believe evolution owns life.

Medical science says I compared living body to closest non human. Living biology is whole one bodies to claim living is now only and not evolution.

As a human didn't invent the living presence of a monkey by thinking about it.

Warning to theists no man is a God...by words or number you write as a calculation.

Saying see my calculation owns life.

Believing in what you claim is a form of human insanity.

We've lived this exact same human experience before. Natural life versus theist inventor.

As humans were living already. When man decided on his science practice the machine.

Today men who reacted gods earth mass to own machine claim humans were invented by earth into his machine type body too. By AI machine mans argument. What theism itself began for...the machine first.

That men with a machine doing another reactive conversion to earth can time shift his machine body also with biology in the same reactive moment.

Meaning I pretend humans are machines too and not biology as a reaction began biology life.

So no we didn't evolve into machines science man...owning machine past his owned biological human life.

Is the argument actually.

 

[gnostic]

Evolutionists have also failed to provide sound math, so by your logic you should also send evolution to the trash……………or you can use a little bit of common sense, and adkowledge that the lack of sound math is not a big of a deal.

Good grief.

You really don't know much about Evolution at all. You really should learn some basics, before you continue to argue something that YOU REALLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

Evolution deal with biology, life, organisms, and while there are some maths involved, there are no law or mathematical model in Natural Selection.

And Evolution isn't physics, where mathematical models (equations) played a large part, especially in theoretical physics.

Evolution, especially Natural Selection, which you have been focusing on (eg "natural selection and random variation") never offer any equations, so that what you are saying "Evolutionists have also failed to provide sound math", is really a false claim, strawman.

The only evolutionary mechanism I heard of that use mathematical models, is Genetic Drift. I don't know much about Genetic Drift, and I don't know what equations they used, but since I have heard of no one refuting Genetic Drift, I would assume the equations are sound.

Now paleontology is different, different because it is a multi-discipline involving biology and geology. Paleontologists required to date fossils and rocks, using stratigraphy, thermoluminescence dating, radiometric dating, etc. Both thermoluinescence and radiometric required knowledge of physics, the former required understanding of ionizing radiation of materials, while the later you would need to know how to date materials, using specific types of radioactive isotopes, so understanding nuclear physics.

Not all biologists are paleontologists. Most universities don't offer any course in paleontology.

Most biologists have never seen fossil, let alone study one, this is because most biologists only deal with extant organisms, not extinct organisms.

 

[rational experiences]

In maths science my numbers are only ever said by the living history a living human proves all truth.

I'm alive. Now.

I was a sperm ovary embryo child teenager adult. Not your owned human personal history theory by maths numbers. Human sex only is not maths.

Is first position a human lying by theism ideal. The baby human man who self idolated in our human life story.

Then maths science states beyond any dispute the first ever just two humans beginning are in science on earth skeletal bone dusts. Now.

Topic human only is as a human about humans for humans.

Whatever other human behaviour you impose it's just a choice. If you are re...searching for an answer for a non bio death....then you'd be applying research to ask other humans to consider human death is absolute only.

Exact science by calculus the first two humans.

Is the human argument I'm right you science human theists are frauds in use of data.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Is it really that hard to understand that those "specific characteristics" includes having knowledge or not about origins?

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

As explained ad nauseum............... point 3, in bold, requires that knowledge.
How else can you determine if it's "likely" or not?

Once again, you keep resisting the point and once again you contradict yourself.
There is no escaping this. You need to know about the processes and mechanisms to determine the likelihood. So if the likelihood is part of the criteria......................................................................

Fill in the blanks. You should be able to by now.

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?

Given you have no idea about the processes that produce roses and which determines the colors of roses, how do you plan on determining the likelihood of "only red roses"?

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

I honestly don't understand how you can just keep doubling down on a gigantic argument from ignorance / circularity