Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

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 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

"spontaneous occurrence" <=> "naturally"--Percy

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

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

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

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

Hi Faith,You haven't yet grasped what people are telling you. This is the most important point:

1. If creation happened naturalistically via abiogenesis, we don't know the process by which it happened and therefore cannot estimate the odds. Anyone who claims to be able to calculate the odds is just making things up.

There are a some less significant points, here are just a few:

2. There's a subsidiary point regarding odds that is simple but important. Long odds, say one chance in trillions, only affect how often something happens, not whether it happens. This isn't the most important point in this discussion, but you persistently misunderstand this point, and so I mention it.
   ​
3. It isn't abiogenesis that is claimed to have definitely happened, but creation. The fact that we are here says it must have happened. This part of the point is really that simple, so maybe the problem is that you're reading too much into it.
   ​
4. If creation happened by divine fiat, we have no scientific information for this scenario and so can say nothing scientifically.

--Percy

Are we speaking scientifically? If so, then the choice is made on the basis of supporting evidence.--Percy

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

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

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

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

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