Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

I usually only run across this in my own arguments where I just blurt out that something makes no sense, is simply incredible, but I don't think I assume that this by itself will stand without support. The most I may wildly hope is that somebody might just recognize it, along the lines of thinking Well, yeah, that does look pretty impossible now that you mention it. Presumably the search for other support would then ensue. But evolutionists aren't bothered by the impossibilities and improbabilities in their work, they just keep focused down on the technical problem in hand. That leaves creationists with the job of putting teeth into these incredulities. Which would be all right I guess except that in practice these efforts don't get any recognition either. Just as I believe Christians should abandon the public schools altogether, I'm starting to think we should abandon these debate charades as well. This may be the only useful result from my months of experience here.

I guess I'm going to be repeating myself again too. You admit that "the odds against abiogenisis are astronomical," which is much appreciated, as others here won't admit that much. The situation you describe IS astronomically improbable as you admit, that is, the generation of life from non-life IS astronomically improbable -- and yet somehow you can go on to treat this as no impediment to that theory. This is just staggering to me (oops, argument from incredulity again). Like a case of Denial or something. Like the most antic illogic imaginable. Creationists should concede radiometric dating perhaps (or at least I should -- and in fact do -- because I can't dispute it rightly, though others may be able to), and it's only right that Evolutionists concede the astronomical improbability of abiogenesis. Perhaps of evolution itself as well. Such concessions don't bring the wheels of science to a grinding halt after all, though you'd think by the stonewall refusal to make any such concession something that dire were at stake. Actually I haven't claimed anything EXCEPT that the "astronomical improbability of abiogenesis" leaves us with the only reasonable alternative explanation for the indisputable fact that "life is here." A Designer.But thank you again for acknowledging that abiogenesis is "astronomically improbable" without requiring me to produce a mathematical model of it.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-05-2005 01:09 AM

Good grief, Nuggin. You really think you can just claim it HAS happened at this point? That's what RAZD was doing and everybody else seems to be doing in various ways, but that's the whole question-begging thing right there. The "astronomical improbabilities" imply it may not have happened at all ever, not that it MUST have happened by the astronomically few chances it COULD have happened.

Refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that RAZD's statement was question-begging has me not much interested in the rest of the conversation. Yes, I understand it was supposedly NOT question-begging because of something having to do with mathematical models and the idiocy of creationists, which isn't very inspiring.

Oh I got it, Percy. "Making things up" as in making an educated guess is how I read it, and one that is subject to all kinds of future adjustments and recalculations. So what's the big deal anyway? So it MUST happen once in trillions? Well, perhaps I do misunderstand probability then. Seems to me if something is astronomically unlikely that simply means it most likely didn't happen. The problem is the jumping from that obvious point to the conclusion that therefore the probability is equal for any given source, whether abiogenesis or a Creator. To say that the fact that life exists makes abiogenesis a likely origin is begging the question the creationists are challenging with their probability estimates. Certainly. But if the odds are astronomically against the occurrence of abiogenesis, precisely this fact gives support to the argument for a Creator.Sure you can say you don't know if they are astronomically against this occurrence or not, but by the same token you can't even say for sure that the creationists' calculations are wrong. They may be right. {OK, maybe the particular ones RAZD dealt with you can know are wrong.}This message has been edited by Faith, 10-05-2005 02:35 PM

You do have a talent for cutting to the chase.Can't wait to see the answers to you.

COULD, sure. But the point of the probabilities from a creationist perspective is that they demonstrate the extreme unlikeliness that it ever happened at all.Perhaps the problem is that creationists operate from common sense rather than math.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-05-2005 02:43 PM

Nonsense. The supporting evidence for a Creator far outstrips the evidence for abiogenesis, but you discount the evidence for a Creator on some artifical definition of what "science" is.

When I click on "chat" I don't get into a chat room.

I thought I did. Maybe it got uninstalled with my recent disk clean-up. That erased a few other things I've been missing too.

OK I loaded Java at the site Yaro linked, exited the browser and re-entered, the Java site says I have the right Java program, but when I click on "Chat" I still get nothing. Or to be precise, I get nothing but the upper and lower panels of EvC with nothing in between:Profile | FAQ | Rules | Search | Members | Forums | All Topics | ChatWelcome, Member Faith! [ Logout ]
EvC Forum Registered Members: 3211Current session began: 10-05-2005 01:43 PM
Page Loaded: 10-05-2005 03:32 PM125 online now: Asgara, Ben, Brian, Clark, clpMINI, DrJones*, Faith, FliesOnly, holmes, mark24, Nuggin, nwr, Omnivorous, Orang, Parasomnium, Percy, sidelined, thbb710, thekai, Yaro, 105 Guests
Chatting now: AdminAsgara, Asgara, jar, Orang, Percy, Phat, sidelined, thekai, Yaro[ Home | Forums Summary | All Topics | Site Map | Contact Us ]© Copyright 2005 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved™ Version 1.0
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2005

Oh well. Figuring out AOL is as big a problem as anything else. Can't find anything about enabling Java.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-05-2005 03:46 PM

I'm using AOL. I went to AOL "settings" but got lost.

Isn't AOL its own browser?

I'd already tried that and got a series of links that didn't seem to go anywhere. Tried again and ended up here: Trouble is I can't find anything labeled "tools" or "internet options"And unfortunately I'm taking way too much time with this and have to get back to work.Maybe we can chat later, when I have more time to figure it all out.