What would refute creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

I didn’t make an argument with LH aminoacids, I used them as an example of an equation

You can't have it both ways. You used a failed argument.

No, that is news to me.

And if LH aminoacids can make other LH aminoacids that would refute the claim that LH aminoacids are SC.

See the argument is falsifiable and apparently you have the knowledge

Really? Now you are appearing to state that an observed fact refutes your belief. Nice shot, I believe that you just got that last toe that you had left.

I can see that you still do not understand the purpose of falsifiability, But since you yourself just refuted SC I guess that we are done here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You made that up (in red letters)

The point is that if you don’t know the origin of something you can test and see if it is SC, if yes then you can infer design,



You remind to to Kent Hovind when he says “you have to know the age of the rock, before applying any dating methods”

I don't really try to come up with ad hominems to apply to you. Even passive aggressive ones.

But I didn't make that up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The point is that even with my poor estimates, the conclusion is likely to be true, you cant walk from LA to NY in 1 say

It is hardly the same thing as a mathematical concept that doesn't have the math.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What you are expected to do is to quote my arguments and explain why you think are wrong (or not well supported)

That is what everyone has done. You just reject valid criticism by doubling down or ignoring it.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree, I wish I would have come out with those words.

But again this is testable stuff, you can show if white flowers are unlikely in the context of those flowers.

But such research needs to be done *first* before a determination of SC can be made.

Well nobody is suggesting that you most conclude something without enough information, my suggestion is that if there are good positive reasons to think that

1 there are many flowers (say a few hundred)

2 that they are all red

3 and that white and red flowers are equally likely to flourish and survive in nature

Then you can conclude that there are good reasons to say that the pattern is SC and therefore that there is an intelligent designer (say a gardener) who artificially selects red flowers over white flowers…. (even if you don’t have prior evidence for the existence of the gardener)

And the problem is that Demski omits the third condition. he *claims* things to be equally likely, often counter to actual evidence.

Obviously all conclusions are tentative, at any point, one can present new evidence that could ether refute or reinforce previous conclusions.

Except that any conclusion at all prior to understanding the natural range of possibilities is premature. And, as we learn more, the SC hypothesis is likely to reduce in strength as opposed to gain *because* it is ultimately an argument from ignorance (of the underlying mechanics).

At this point I am not affirming that the flowers (or life) is SC, all I am saying is that one can conclude SC based on positive and testable evidence,

Only if the underlying mechanisms are thoroughly understood. Otherwise it becomes an argument from ignorance of such underlying mechanisms.

If anything, if you saw a filed of red roses and knew that both red and white roses were possible, the conclusion would be that some sort of mechanism is in place that shifts the probabilities to eliminate the other color.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, that is right

Would you reject everything that is not based on sound math?

If the prime argument in its favor was mathematical and the math was unsound, yes, I would reject it.

 

[Polymath257]

I meant that having sound math would have been a nice bonus.

Demskis cased is based on the fact that information can only come from a mind, and that DNA is information (analogous to words and sentences)

And he is completely wrong about those claims.

Information is inherent in any causal event and, in fact, in any conformation of matter. No minds are required.

 

[Polymath257]

The point is that even with my poor estimates, the conclusion is likely to be true, you cant walk from LA to NY in 1 say

And that conclusion is based on estimates of how fast someone can walk. If those estimates are wrong, the conclusion is questionable. And if the math leading to those estimates is so wrong as to make a wide range of walking speeds possible, the conclusion cannot be based on that logic.

So, if it is not known what the relative rates of red and white roses are and how the rates are affected by other roses, it is impossible to conclude SC.

Even after some testing, it is possible, even likely, that we will be ignorant of many underlying mechanisms. And when such underlying mechanisms are suggested, that alone is enough to negate the SC conclusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, that is news to me.

And if LH aminoacids can make other LH aminoacids that would refute the claim that LH aminoacids are SC.

See the argument is falsifiable and apparently you have the knowledge

Once again you show that you don't understand what falsifiability means.
Once again you demonstrate how your arguments are nothing but appeals to ignorance.

 

[leroy]

But such research needs to be done *first* before a determination of SC can be made.

Sure, no body is saying that one can claim SC without research

Only if the underlying mechanisms are thoroughly understood. Otherwise it becomes an argument from ignorance of such underlying mechanisms.

sure

If anything, if you saw a filed of red roses and knew that both red and white roses were possible, the conclusion would be that some sort of mechanism is in place that shifts the probabilities to eliminate the other color.

Yes, but you are dealing with testable stuff, you can test for those mechanisms and the result of your tests could ether refute or reinforce your previous conclusion

Except that any conclusion at all prior to understanding the natural range of possibilities is premature. And, as we learn more, the SC hypothesis is likely to reduce in strength as opposed to gain *because* it is ultimately an argument from ignorance (of the underlying mechanics).


By that logic, everything , all hypothesis, theories, models, etc are “arguments from ignorance” because we don’t know about all the natural mechanism and we don’t know if there is any mechanism that would refute previous conclusions.

My point is that one is supposed to do the best they can with the information that we have available, if there are good reasons to think that white roses are equally likely and that there is nothing in known nature that would alter the probabilities, then why not granting this conclusion at least until someone provides new information.

For example if current observations show Uranium -238 has a half life of 4.5B years and there is nothing known in nature that could alter this rate, why not concluding that Uranium really has a half live of 4.5B years?............... sure by your logic this could be an argument form ignorance, because just because we don’t know of any mechanism that could alter the rate, that doesn’t mean that such mechanism doesn’t exist, but in reality you would not use this silly objection to refute radiometric dating.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, no body is saying that one can claim SC without research

sure

Yes, but you are dealing with testable stuff, you can test for those mechanisms and the result of your tests could ether refute or reinforce your previous conclusion

And what are the results of ALL such research so far? No SC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And what are the results of ALL such research so far? No SC.

Just you wait! The next issue of Evolution News comes out. I am sure that it will not be totally full of distortion of scientific papers as usual:

Evolution News | Reporting on intelligent design and evolution

Don't look at that one. It is full of distortions. I said to wait!

 

[leroy]

And what are the results of ALL such research so far? No SC.

Well I think there are good reasons to assume that the first life (first self replicating organic thing) was SC

We have good reason to think that

1 the first life had many biomolecules (at least a few hundredth thousand)

2 most possible combinations won’t result in life

3 the specific combination needed for life is not more likely than any other combination (molecules don’t “try” to organize themselves in the correct order)

Is there any point that you would deny?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I think there are good reasons to assume that the first life (first self replicating organic thing) was SC

We have good reason to think that

1 the first life had many biomolecules (at least a few hundredth thousand)

2 most possible combinations won’t result in life

3 the specific combination needed for life is not more likely than any other combination (molecules don’t “try” to organize themselves in the correct order)

Is there any point that you would deny?

Another argument from ignorance.

 

[gnostic]

The point is that if you don’t know the origin of something you can test and see if it is SC, if yes then you can infer design,

But that just the things, all members of the Discovery Institute, all of them are creationists, THEY ALWAYS INFER DESIGN.

What they can never do, is find evidence of “DESIGN”.

And since they always “infer” Design, they would always imply “DESIGNER”, but they can never find evidence that such a “Designer” even exist.

All the “inferring” and “implying” being concluded “true” without ever being testing being done,

Inferring something being true, without any testing and without any physical evidence, make the whole Intelligent Design, Specified Complexity & Irreducible Complexity, “unfalsifiable” and “pseudoscientific”.

You can infer all your claims, but none of your inferring can magically transform into physical evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Well I think there are good reasons to assume that the first life (first self replicating organic thing) was SC

We have good reason to think that

1 the first life had many biomolecules (at least a few hundredth thousand)

2 most possible combinations won’t result in life

3 the specific combination needed for life is not more likely than any other combination (molecules don’t “try” to organize themselves in the correct order)

Is there any point that you would deny?

Reasoning alone, don’t make SC “scientific”.

It would require SC to be “falsifiable” and “testable”. But SC failed in that department, and that would means Specified Complexity don’t even qualify being a hypothesis.

And to be an accepted as a “scientific theory”, SC would have to be rigorously “tested”. Once again, Specified Complexity failed, here too.

In order to be “tested”, it would require observations of physical evidence or being able to perform experiments. The evidence or experiments would and should information (data) about the phenomena, eg quantities, measurements, the physical properties of the phenomena, etc. No such evidence & data exist for Specified Complexity.

Failing to “the formulation of the hypothesis” and “the testing of the hypothesis” mean that it failed to pass the requirements of the Scientific Method.

All the reasons and inferences and implying in the world will not turn Specified Complexity into science.

Reasoning can fail too, especially if the reasoning is illogical and are filled with logical fallacies, eg -

• Circular reasoning
• Argument from ignorance
• Special pleading
• False Equivalence, this have to do all the irrelevant analogies being used.

What good is reasoning if Dembski or Behe or you, are being irrational?

You even admitted that Dembski’s mathematics failed...which would mean that Specified Complexity don’t even qualify as being a “theoretical framework” or a “theoretical model”.

So Specified Complexity have failed to be theoretical model and hypothesis and scientific theory. How many times must Specified Complexity before you resigns to the fact that SC isn’t logical and isn’t scientific?

 

[gnostic]

So the math that Dembski's entire concept rests upon is unsound, and you don't see how that's enough of an objection to question his entire concept? Is that right?

@leroy don't even understand that if the mathematics from Dembski are unsound, then Specified Complexity don’t even qualify as being “theoretical framework”.

 

[gnostic]

That is not how arguments form ignorance are defined

I am presenting a case based on premises that can be objectively tested , if this is not good enough for you then I don’t know what else to do

But you haven’t presented your premise that can be “tested”.

You have presented nothing more than untestable assertions.

 

[Polymath257]

Well I think there are good reasons to assume that the first life (first self replicating organic thing) was SC

We have good reason to think that

1 the first life had many biomolecules (at least a few hundredth thousand)

Highly unlikely. Much more likely below 100.

2 most possible combinations won’t result in life

Irrelevant. As long as the probability for life is high
enough, it is likely to have started *somewhere*.

3 the specific combination needed for life is not more likely than any other combination (molecules don’t “try” to organize themselves in the correct order)

Again, I would doubt this given that we don't expect the molecules to form 'all at once' and we do suspect there would be positive feedback effects.

Is there any point that you would deny?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well I think there are good reasons to assume that the first life (first self replicating organic thing) was SC

We have good reason to think that

1 the first life had many biomolecules (at least a few hundredth thousand)

2 most possible combinations won’t result in life

3 the specific combination needed for life is not more likely than any other combination (molecules don’t “try” to organize themselves in the correct order)

Is there any point that you would deny?

In order for that to have any mathematical/statistical relevance, you first have to, 1) estimate the number of combinations that are possible, 2) estimate the number of combinations that don't "result in life", 3) estimate the number of combinations that do "result in life", and 4) estimate the number of trials.

Unless I've missed something, that's basically impossible.