His doing any probability calculations whatever gives credence to that approach, despite the fact that he was trying to demonstrate how wrong the creationist version is. Then finally to declare all probability calculations irrelevant as the fact that life exists is evidence enough for his team is, once again, begging the question.
No, you can actually use a multiprong attack to defeat another's position. In fact it is even more powerful if you can attack a position by both undercutting its very plausibility, as well as to assume its plausibility and show how its use is incorrect.
I am not on a team with RAZD. You can check other threads where we have been in disagreement, including on scientific issues. You are making a mistake in reading what he is saying.
creationist observation that life's springing up out of nowhere is ridiculously improbable.
A model is not an observation. And abio does not assert that life sprang up out of nowhere. In fact, abio suggests that life must have emerged under very specific conditions which may have taken a very long period of time.
Obviously no room for simple common sense when it comes to the very idea that life could just happen
I thought you were arguing for the strength of modelling? What on earth does "common sense" have to do with molecular modelling? That would have to be some very complex stuff. Take an organic chem or biochem course some time.
You guys spend WAY too much time in the laboratory peering at the trees and completely missing the forest.
As compared to never leaving one's armchair staring at a single collection of inkstained pressed woodpulp? My guess is we're a bit closer to the target, some of us even study forests.
I'm not sure how your quote above answered my point that using random probability calcs for chemical dynamics is useless and indeed NOT what is found in nature... or the lab.
I'm sure both can be attacked on their own merits.
Woulda coulda shoulda
I refer you to Ben's attempts to explain that creationism is operating from a completely other frame of reference, and it's time this difference was both recognized and respected if there is to be anything approaching real debate here.
Hey, I recognize the difference. It is a completely different epistemological rule system and have said so myself.
Unfortunately it does mean that it is not modern science. And by the way, when others recognize it is not science and so should not be taught creationists get all flustered and say it SHOULD be in schools as science.
I don't think many here would think that people should be prevented from pursuing creationism or id, just that it should not be passed off as science or the equivalence of science. The hot button issue is that creationists are claiming it is science and trying to suggest evo theory is not proper science. Your "team" needs to make up its mind.
I get very tired of this straw man, which is an argument I have never used and in fact haven't seen other creationists use.
I didn't say you used it, I said creationists did. They most certainly do. But let's say you are right... okey doke... what mechanisms should I be looking for?
Robinrohan recognized this despite disagreeing with creationist methods. The rest of you should recognize it also
Robin was wrong. Just because Robin agrees with you does not make Robin right. I have disagreed with RAZD in other threads and so would be just fine pointing the finger of blame here. Did you not notice me stick it to Percy twice in this very thread for overstating his argument?
As a person who think evo theory is our best paradigm for diversity, and abio our best (though quite tentative) paradigm for life, I do not need to back every single statement made by others who argue in favor of evo or abio. Many have made mistakes, including logical fallacies.
The problem is that in this case RAZD did not. He was discussing the nature of models and he did so correctly.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
