Aren't you ignoring the rest of my post? I thought you didn't do that?I am just asking “what would falsify “nature did it” “?
If you answer is “I don’t know!” the that is ok _(end of discussion)
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Aren't you ignoring the rest of my post? I thought you didn't do that?I am just asking “what would falsify “nature did it” “?
If you answer is “I don’t know!” the that is ok _(end of discussion)
If you are willing to reject SC just because it is not supported by robust math, go ahead, would you reject all claims that lack robust mathematical support?............or do you make exceptins with stuff that that contradict your view?It means that Specified Complexity is also a failure.
Specified Complexity is useless in maths, and it is even more useless in biology.
Actually, it is not my own personal claim. It is the claim of pretty much all of science.No we agreed that SC is not grounded in robust math
That SC is a useless concept is your own personal unsupported claim
Show me that not providing you with these posts negates the value of my advice, makes you correct or means that those posts do not exist.Ok quote those posts
Where you making a relevant point? Apart from the point that responded to ? care to explain that point?Aren't you ignoring the rest of my post? I thought you didn't do that?
Actually, it is not my own personal claim. It is the claim of pretty much all of science.
Yes I would argue that a concept can be valid even if it is not supported by robust mathWhat you now seem to be saying is that despite the fact that Dembski's SC cannot be supported by the math, you are still going to use it as if it has value in a legitimate discussion. Much like using the ether to argue about chemistry.
Is that sound?
No, SC is useless because the explanations are weak and unfalsifiable (untestable).No we agreed that SC is not grounded in robust math
That SC is a useless concept is your own personal unsupported claim
From what I am reading, SC has been concluded to be valueless in the discussion. Pretty leaving the argument of intelligent design empty and without even the pretense of a basis.How did you determine that, "SC is likely to be caused by a mind" ... ?
If you're saying something is "likely" then you would have had to do some math somewhere. Where is it?
And how did you determine that something, anything, is specifically complex? I think this thread demonstrates that the idea is at the very least, mathematically unsound.
I have supported it. You have supported it for me. Others have offered support. What else to do you need? How many times does McCoy have to say "He's dead Jim"?Maybe, but you haven’t support it
Where in all of this have you shown us that evolutionary theory doesn't have the support of mathematics and is on the same level as Dembski's SC?If you are willing to reject SC just because it is not supported by robust math, go ahead, would you reject all claims that lack robust mathematical support?............or do you make exceptins with stuff that that contradict your view?
... which of these points do you deny?
1 Yes I agree there is no robust math supporting ID (nor evolution by natrual selection)
2 the lack math is not a big of a deal
3 one can say that something is too improbable to have occurred by chance, even if you dont know the exact probability (ERVs woudl be an example)
Apart from the fact that this illustrates evidence against your claim that you do not ignore what others post, the points stand and remain unanswered by you.Where you making a relevant point? Apart from the point that responded to ? care to explain that point?
SC is just a pattern with specific characteristics, if something with those characteristicsIt failed to be falsifiable, so that disqualified SC from being a hypothesis (which is the 1st half of Scientific Method - the formulation of the hypothesis).
What you suggest is a very common pattern exploited by creationists. There is a gap in our knowledge and creationism is used to fill that gap until new evidence is discovered that actually fills the gap.SC is just a pattern with specific characteristics, if something with those characteristics
1 was caused by a non-mind then ID would be falsified
2 if the pattern lacks some of those specific characeristics, it would be “not SC” and therefore the design inference would be falsified,
You yes we are talking about a testable and falsifiable concept.
For example something could seem to be SC (given the current evidence) and then future evidence could show that in reality it is not SC. (there it is falsifiable)
You didn’t answer my question, do you reject all the models that lack robust mathematical support? Or do you only reject those that contradict your view.Where in all of this have you shown us that evolutionary theory doesn't have the support of mathematics and is on the same level as Dembski's SC?
I must have missed those many, many posts.
Were those posts to be named later also where you showed that a failed basis in math is not big deal and again, that it is the same for the theory of evolution?
Your defense seems to have gone from supporting the OP to trying to poke holes in the existing science.
Don't you think that is always where these discussions seem to go? I wonder why that is.
Maybe but the point of the comment that you are responding to is to show that ID is falsifiableWhat you suggest is a very common pattern exploited by creationists. There is a gap in our knowledge and creationism is used to fill that gap until new evidence is discovered that actually fills the gap.
That poster did actually answer your question.You didn’t answer my question, do you reject all the models that lack robust mathematical support? Or do you only reject those that contradict your view.
For example one of the strongest pieces of evidence in favor of evolution (common ancestry) is ERVs the argument is “humans and chimps share many ERVs in the same spot, which is unlikely to have happened by chance” (therefore common ancestry is the best explanation)…………..of course nobody has a mathematical model that shows exactly how unlikely is it, but it is still a good argument, despite the absence of robust math supporting the argument.
In other words my claims are
1 yes I agree that Demski lacks robust mathematical models supporting his view
2 this is not a big of a deal, (many valid theories/hypothesis/models etc. also lack robust mathematical support.)
If you disagree with me on point 2 then you would have to drop evolution and many other well accepted scientific stuff
In that comment you said that you don’t know what would falsify “nature did it” and then you simply explained why is it that you don’t know it.Apart from the fact that this illustrates evidence against your claim that you do not ignore what others post, the points stand and remain unanswered by you.
No we agreed that SC is not grounded in robust math
That SC is a useless concept is your own personal unsupported claim
I am just asking “what would falsify “nature did it” “?
3 one can say that something is too improbable to have occurred by chance, even if you dont know the exact probability (ERVs woudl be an example)