Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

Thanks, Faith, for an absolutely priceless example.

quote:

---

Is anybody but a creationist going to see why this is hilarious?

​

No. Only a creationist would be ignorant enough to think this was funny.

---

Interesting, in light of the certainty that some creationists adamently believe that all existence is based on mathematical formula, the universe and all that is therein. They believe it all adds up and balances. When that formula is found and solved, all the worlds will be astonished at its simplicity.Creationists are not solo on ignorance nor closed-mindedness.
Don't you agree?

I have no idea what you just said. No, but they're certainly way out in front with it.

I sure agree with that. We all fall into the trap and no one is without ignorance on many, many topics.However this thread has exemplified in a very crisp manner that the creationists seem to specialize in willful ignorance and closed-mindedness.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-02-2005 11:04 PM

Neither do probabilities need to be calculated for a sequence of selected random steps. What needs to be done is to study the mechanisms to understand them better and see where they lead, rather than just proclaim that it can't be done.Mathematically the bumble bee cannot fly based on an {urban legend} calculation. If you don't know enough about the system no amount of math is going to improve your understanding. Sorry, I don't buy it, it is just too improbable for me. I believe in a created universe where diversity and the possibility of life was maximized, but where all life grows by the natural laws created with the universe. We don't know what that improbability is. Maybe when all the calculatinos are finally done with all the knowledge possible on this issue that it is 1 in 10.It is entirely possible that the universe was created to make it probable in many places and we just happen to exist in one of them.It is also possible that this happened in this universe by random action and we just happen to live in one that produces life and happen to exist in one of the places where it is possible.The math cannot tell you the answer to those questions, only science and the study of what is possible can do that.

---

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.

Okay, I'll take the bait. Yes, the likelihood of abiogenisis is very low. Good thing we are arguing this from Earth and not some barren rock in outer space where it didn't happen.Now, let's have the same discussion about logic, reason, evidence, etc."The logic (reason, evidence, etc) problem for creationists, not for evolutionists, and should be conceded"

quote:

---

The probability problem is a problem for evolutionists, not for creationists, and should be conceded

---

There is no problem - only lies and falsehoods. Thus the side that should concede is the creationist side. They should concede that there is no valid calculation of the probability. They should concede that all the "clculations" they have produced are not valid calculations for the origin of life. They should stop using the "probability argument" because it is groundless.Anything less would be dishonest.o

Agreed, but has it also not been shown that this exact same willful ignorance and closed mindedness is being used equally by evos when it comes to personal beliefs they do not want challenged?I think it is a bit bad form to single out creationists as sole exemplars of this behavior at this point. They are clearly the ones having this problem with regard to the science of origins and diversity of life (and perhaps some geological issues), but pick another topic and watch evos make the exact same mistake.The real issue I think all of this is uncovering, is the issue of personal bias within science and knowledge. Most people want science to uncover what they believe and if it does not then it gets junked. That is a serious problem for us all.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You are making the same mistake you accuse RAZD of making.A model is constructed by scientists in order to check the understanding of their knowledge of an area, and to make predictions if the model is good. They cannot test their model against an unknown entity or phenomena, which abiogenesis and full evolutionary mechanisms would be at this point in time.We can see that life does exist. We do not know how. We have very very little knowledge about the mechanics of chemical dynamics, much less organic chemical dynamics under all conditions, much less what the conditions would have been at the point of abiogenesis, if it occured.Mathematical models of abiogenesis or evolution then are not really disproof of anything. If a model showed that life could be made, then it would have to be tested in real life. If that happened then the model would be shown to be good and the abiogenesis possibility gets a huge boost. If a model does not show how life could be made, that means it could be right or it could be wrong.To claim that theoretical mathematical models act in any way to disprove abiogenesis or evolution, is to beg the question of the validity of the mathematical model.The failure of models to suggest how or how often life could have arisen is not a detriment to TOE and abio theories. It doesn't help them, but it does nothing to hinder them. The only time this could be the case is when we have accurate mathematical models for all possible chemical dynamics under all conditions, and have run them and still come up with nothing.All known chemical dynamics is not at this time anywhere close to all possible dynamics.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Faith, What is the probability then, that is such a conundrum for evolutionary theory? What are the numbers/variables that we plug into the model? You mean to say you don't know? Then it's not a problem for evo's at all, then, is it?Your problem is akin to, measure the paramaters of something you don't know, multiply that by another number you don't know, & square root that by another number you don't know. Ha! Evolution is dead .When we have known variables to plug into a model then you can tell us we have a problem, until then your pissing in the wind.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

OK..I am winging it on this one. I am not asserting that the Bible proves creationism or not. I AM asserting that some things can be theoretically true.This message has been edited by Phat, 10-03-2005 04:19 AM

Phat, Fine & dandy, but are they actually true, & how do you tell?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

To summarize, creationists have offered math to suggest the overwhelming improbability of abiogenesis, a claim that individual creationists are happy to use in debate. The math is seriously flawed.In response to these flaws being pointed out, the individual creationist at hand (that's you, Faith) declares that the math doesn't matter since creationist probability is 100% (supported only by assertion, not by any evidence or mathematical model), and any degree of improbability for abiogenesis is trumped by creationist certitude.Either the math matters or it doesn't: this now-we-use-it, now-we-don't maneuver is like sleight of hand.It seems to me that this discussion epitomizes the difficulty with Intelligent Design or Creationist Science, i.e., religion, entering the scientific arena: arguments are presented with purported mathematical or scientific evidentiary claims as support, but when those claims are invalidated, the response is that math and science don't really matter, anyway.But what truly bears repeating is that evolutionists are not presented any problem even if a valid mathematical model suggests abiogenesis is wildly improbable--the theory of evolution does not address abiogenesis.The assertion that evolutionists have anything to concede here, even if we grant the contrary-to-reality claim that the creationist math is valid, is invalidated by irrelevance.One might validly say that a well-supported mathematical critique of abiogenesis would present a problem to those who support abiogenesis, but evolutionists truly do not have a dog in that fight, even if they may also consider abiogenesis the most likely source of life.I am inclined to believe that abiogenesis occurred, but I have no developed theory to support that belief, merely my observation that naturalistic phenomena eventually yield to naturalistic explanation. Evolution is another matter entirely, with a well-developed theoretical model and a plethora of evidence.Edit: typoEdit #2: another typo--I gotta start using a spell checker...This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-03-2005 09:01 AMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 10-03-2005 09:02 AM

---

IMHO

Let us assume that we would somehow determine an abiogenesis-path that is undeniably *possible*, and that it is the absolutely only one that we can find after thousands of years of research.. Let's also assume that we had perfect insight into the involved probability calculation. AND that this calculation showed that the chance for this abiogenesis to occur was 10-to-the-power-brazillion.In what way would this indicate that the proposed trajectory, the only possible one that carries all our hope, is NOT a valid candidate and should be abandoned in favour of Divine Creation?The weak anthropic principle takes perfectly care of this, and the analogy of the lottery-winner applies:As long as the winner is only aware of himself, and not of the millions of others who PARTICIPATED but DIDN'T win (the failed experiments), he feels special and values the incredible odds against his winning ticket. But as soon as he sees the Big Picture, the "incredible odds" can be seen in their true perspective: it was INEVITABLE that someone won. And it happened to be HIM.Out situation would be one where buying a winning or not winning ticket would mean the difference between existing (being able to wonder about the situation) or not existing at all (and not wondering at all, obviously ).If there were no other viable places around, our existence could be totally incomprehensible if the 10-to-the-power-brazillion chance were accurate. But with every next dead planet that is being discovered, it become less wonderous because it helps putting things in the right perspective. Every newly discovered dead planet is like meeting a new lottery-loser. And since it looks like planets are a normal by-product of star-formation, there are quite a few losers out there, lol

I am not saying that math doesn't matter. Since there are so many unknowns the math is moot. My objection to what RAZD said wasn't about the math, it was about his skipping from the difficulties of the math to the preposterous assertion that since life exists therefore the probabilities can't be against the random generation of life, which is a staggeringly transparent case of begging the question.Intuitively the odds are against abiogenesis and evolution itself to some astronomical degree, but since intuition isn't math you can just let the creationists go on knowing it's true while you pretend it isn't with all the scientific justification you can muster and keep the creationists marginalized by sheer force of assertion. It OUGHT to be conceded that with the present knowns the probabilities are against you. You don't have to have ALL the facts to make intelligent guesses that this is the case. Compute it from whatever knowns you can muster, it will always come out against you. When you know more, recompute it. All these objections to creationists' computing it at all are just evolutionists declaring their hegemony, nothing more than that.{Edit: P.S., much of the "evidence" for evolution itself is not disputed by creationists at all. The claim is that the evidence is misinterpreted.}This message has been edited by Faith, 10-03-2005 10:10 AM