Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

Hello, Faith.I was going to let it go for a day and then write a post explaining the proper role of mathematical models in science. But if you plan on responding, maybe I'll wait to see why you think RAZD's comment is so interesting. I think I may have a vague idea of what you are thinking, but I'd rather wait to see what you say before I "put words in your mouth."

hehan old professor of mine stated that paradox a little differently:if you take a young man and a young woman and put them 10 feet apart, and every second you halve the distance between them,theoretically they never touchbut they get close enough for all practical purposes.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I'm interested in what you think is funny. What I think is that you have your "analogy" exactly backwards.

No hurry, Faith. In spite of the tone here, I would say we are all really interested in your point. Everyone has a blind spot eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Would you be willing to email your thought to me before posting it? I mean if you really did get it that will be great support for me, and if you didn't I'm going to have to try to explain something to this whole gallery here who are not going to be open to it no matter how well I explain it, and it would help to know in advance which situation I have to face.

The only thing I can think that you might be thinking is that, including context RAZD appears to be saying: And you think it is funny that he is saying that the we have evidence that abiogenesis has happened so mathematical evidence that purports to show that it didn't must be flawed.However, I don't think anyone else has interpreted RAZD to be saying this. RAZD seems to be saying that where reality and maths seem to contradict, reality should win. In this particular case we assume that the genesis of life had a natural beginning since everytime we examine something, that is the conclusion we reach (natural reasons). Our model of reality seems to indicate natural phenomena have natural explanations. If a mathematical model indicates otherwise then either our model of reality is wrong or the mathematical model is wrong. RAZD was saying that the chances are, its the model that is wrong.He said all this after showing, in detail, as to why the model is wrong.Unfortunately, even trying to see it from your angle I don't see it as funny, from what I perceive your angle to be, it's just logically flawed.This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 02-October-2005 03:55 PM

(Sorry God...just for illustrative purposes.)

I think you are close Mod, but I think it's actually this: Since, I'm pretty sure Faith doesn't support Abiogenisis, and therefore sees not "evidence around" that it has happened.She has, one the other hand, frequently stated that she sees evidence everywhere for the Flood.After all, how else would we get those big oceans?

Oh, I got it, Faith. But it's even more funny with a little word replacement: The fact that you don't see the simple truth of this statemnt is absolutely hilarious to me.A mathematical prediction is exactly that - a prediction. It's only as good as the observed evidence used to formulate it. Math, like the Bible, can be a good reason tp look for something. But observable evidence trumps all. It's simply delusional to ignore observable evidence in favor of something that's supposed to represent reality (whether an old book or a mathematical model) - obviously, if the evidence shows that the mathematical model or the old book do not represent reality with accuracy, it is not the observable evidence that is wrong.HINT: Logic.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Ooh! I like this one, Nuggin. Our mathematical models and physical laws demonstrate that a global flood in historical times is impossible, yet that doesn't deter creationists from their conclusions. Even when they have to make the evidence up.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

We have to remember that creationism works in "reverse-evolutionist" order: They start with the conclusion and work their way toward the evidence. All evidence must be "interpreted" in the light of the existing conclusion."Reverse-evolutionist" mathematics is perfectly consistent with that approach: The math agrees with the conclusion - therefore, the math is correct. All evidence must be "interpreted" in the light of the existing conclusion and the confirming math.Thus endeth today's lesson in "Thinking like a creationist".

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Well, here goes an attempt to fly this thought process against hurricane force evolutionist winds. Ah well.A couple here are in the ballpark (Modulous and Chiroptera? Sorry if I'm wrong) but still not getting what I see in it. I really did laugh out loud when I read through the above. Yes, it's basically a logical fallacy.Through this post RAZD has been arguing about the probabilities involved, just the math Ma'am, claiming that creationists compute outlandishly low probability for abiogenesis or evolution as such. I get the basic idea but I didn't try to grasp his points in any depth. They may be correct -- or not. In any case he admits his own calculations also give highly unfavorable odds.And THEN he blows the whole enterprise with the above statement. "Well duh," he seems to be saying, it DOES exist, so therefore it just ISN'T improbable. That's where I laugh.Well, WHAT isn't improbable? Well, that EVOLUTION brought all that about, rather than a Designer. But that is what is under dispute. That is what is being discussed. It isn't just that life exists, the dispute is about how it came to be, and very low probability for evolutionist processes is evidence for the creationist side. All he is doing here is massive begging of the question, assuming his conclusion in his premise, circular reasoning.What he is saying is there's no point in bothering about the improbabilities as clearly evolution did this! And everybody applauds and thinks he's struck this blow for his team.But of course the improbabilities are raised by creationists to suggest that these things couldn't arise from the processes that evolutionists claim they did. All RAZD ends up saying in answer is, Well they did! Period.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 03:45 PM

Yup. YECs are simply wrong. It really is as simple as that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So all the fancy math need not be indulged in, just cut to the chase and declare the creationists wrong. Yup, that's really what it amounts to. Quite hilarious all the pretense to deal with the evidence though.

Well, no, not really. What he is actually saying is that we shouldn't bother with about the probabilities because there are 'too many conceptual (mathematical and logical) errors in this kind of thinking, for it to hold any validity as any kind of model of reality.' Indeed, RAZD's central point is that 'there is no way they can properly model the probability without understanding the process to the point where it would be evident that we knew how life evolved.' (given we weren't talking about probabilities surrounding evolution but the origin of life, I assume when he said 'how life evolved' he actually meant 'how life originated'.I think that my be the point you missed. If we knew what the probabilities were, we would know how it happened. If we know how it happened it must have happened. Since we don't know the how, we cannot calculate the probability of that how.Yet people still try, doesn't that tell us something?