|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Which I put this way: "...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." When speaking of models and probabilities and so forth, we're talking scientifically. When we say that since life exists therefore the probabilities cannot rule out its spontaneous occurrence, we're talking scientifically. When you call it begging the question because there are other possibilities we're not considering you're not speaking scientifically, because those other possibilities are not science.
I can't get anything out of any of your carrying on about the validity of models but your determination to be sure you keep creationists in the category of idiots. I wouldn't use the term "idiots", but it is certainly a mistake to assign scientific status to religious beliefs that are unsupported by objective evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
"spontaneous occurrence" <=> "naturally"
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: And about the model's not being complete, how nice it would be if the evolutionists would recognize that that is the case for creationism when they make their haughty demands for a complete theory from them and say it is not science until it exists. The demands, haughty or not, are not for a complete theory, but for a theory supported by evidence. The primary problem for Creationism isn't its incompleteness, but its lack of evidence combined with all the contrary evidence. It is the determination of Creationism to hold fast to its views despite the evidence problem that consigns it to realms outside of science. Science is a process of following the evidence, and Creationism cannot be considered science as long as it assigns a higher priority to following the Bible than to following the evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
holmes writes: Did you not notice me stick it to Percy twice in this very thread for overstating his argument? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: 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. Faith, I'm addressing this more to everyone else than to you. Until someone is able to help Faith get past her misunderstanding of this aspect of probability, I don't think much progress can be made. Not that there aren't other important aspects to the discussion, but this seems central to Faith's belief that evolutionists are refusing to face the self-evident impossibility of something as unlikely as abiogenesis ever happening. I would have thought the lottery example sufficient to make the point, but I guess not. Someone's going to have to find a better example. Not to draw the discussion off-topic, but in my view abiogenesis isn't unlikely. Conditions on the ancient earth could easily have been strongly encouraging to the process. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
holmes writes: I can't seem to cut and paste smileys so I won't be able to quote your riveting retort. When you're typing into the reply box, look down to the message you're replying to. At the top you'll see two radio buttons, one labeled "Normal", the other labeled "Peek Mode". Click on "Peek Mode". Now you can copy-n-paste smilies, and all other HTML/dBCode content. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Yes, I think you're right, those may come closer to being the core issues. And I think someone needs to help Faith understand these issues before discussion can be productive. But this is an old song where discussions with Faith are concerned. She doesn't think there's any necessity for understanding what she holds opinions about.
Faith, could you respond to the posts Modulous mentioned, in a way that directly addresses the points they contain? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Faith,
You haven't yet grasped what people are telling you. This is the most important point:
There are a some less significant points, here are just a few:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
robinrohan writes: There are only two choices:1. special creation (the idea of being made by aliens just sets the question back a step). 2. came about naturally Is there any reason to prefer one choice to another? Are we speaking scientifically? If so, then the choice is made on the basis of supporting evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: 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. I didn't comment about which choice the evidence supports. All I said was that the choice is made on the basis of the supporting evidence, and it sounds like you agree. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
These issues might resolve much faster in the chat room. I'll hang out there for a bit in case you decide to join.
--Pecy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Sorry it's not working for you. Hopefully Yaro's suggestion of installing Java works. If not, describe for me what happens when you click on chat.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: Isn't AOL its own browser? It's been years since I used AOL, so I won't try to answer. Hopefully there's a fellow AOL'er online here who can help. I know AOL has a pretty good help facility. What happens if you type "java" or "enable java" into their help box? Another possibility - what happens if you explicitly bring up a browser (either Internet Explorer, Netscape or FireFox, it shouldn't matter) while you're logged in to AOL? Does the browser come up in its own window? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Faith,
I think you should change from AOL. You may find it confusing for a while as you become accustomed to whichever mainstream browser you choose, but in the long run you'll be much happier. It's not that AOL is inherently bad or anything, though there are many of that viewpoint, but it's unnecessary, an extra layer of software you don't need and shouldn't pay for, plus it can get in the way of accessing some features of the Internet. If you have young children and you need it for filtering I guess that's a good argument for AOL, but other justifications are probably hard to come by, other than familiarity and inertia. Is AOL also your ISP? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024