Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

From a personal perspective there is no real reason to prefer one to the other, because there is such a dearth of info, besides an acknowledgment of where there is no potentially contrary evidence and no added entities required.From a scientific perspective I though I made the point that there is. Special creation is unable to be considered a reasonable scientific theory at this time. It is possible that at some future point we get something which may start pointing in that direction. However, as of right now there is only contrary scientific evidence to postulate that.Again I ask, do you agree?

---

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

Faith, as I explained in an earlier post, the odds against you having the genome you do are greater than Seventy-trillion to one...but yet, here you are. Are you (and every other person on this planet) the result of Devine intervention?

Why would Dan Devine (mhrip) be performing genomic interventions? --Percy

Ummm..because I can't spell Divine? But on the other hand, Notre Dame seems to be doing better this year....coincidence...or maybe there's something to be said for Faith's position. PS: I loathe ND though..GO BLUE!

Modulous, I don't see how I'm commenting on the probabilities at all when you get down to it. I'm not commenting on the math model. I'm commenting ONLY on RAZD's summary statement which assumes abiogenesis when it is what he's supposedly arguing for with his comments on the probabilities. I've tried to point out that you could substitute "opinion" for "mathematical model" as far as the point I'm trying to make goes.But you want me to comment on this: But although this has come up in the course of this discussion, it is NOT what the discussion is about. The argument that abiogenesis is highly improbable is a classic argument for a Creator, however, since there are only the two alternatives, spontaneous generation or creation/ a Designer. But that is NOT, I repeat NOT, the point of this thread, and again, although I've made comments here and there on it, I'd rather keep focused on the question-begging issue which you have tentatively acknowledged might have some merit, but just about nobody else has as this thread gallops to a close. Fraid not. I really do believe that abiogenesis is improbable-out-to-impossible and that to my mind leaves a Designer. But again I do not want to argue it here. It is a side issue.{Edit: Thank you for recognizing RAZD's question-begging although I don't understand why you are hedging it as merely "close."}This message has been edited by Faith, 10-06-2005 10:07 AM

I have merely avoided the mathematical angle and emphasized a common sensical position, but mostly I am trying to get away from the whole question of the chances of anything as it detracts from what I was trying to focus on, the simple matter of RAZD's assuming abiogenesis though he was presumably making an argument for it. That's what I said was so hilarious in the OP and really this thread is way OT when it gets into the particulars of the probabilities.

I was quoting ohnai, because I was answering ohnai, not RAZD, but maybe that was a mistake.{Edit: Saw your retraction as ohnai corrected you. Thanks.}This message has been edited by Faith, 10-06-2005 10:03 AM

You are discussing an off topic point. The only point of this thread is RAZD's assuming abiogenesis in the process of supposedly defending it in a debate.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-06-2005 09:56 AM

I am not arguing this, or at least I regret having argued it if I might have, because it is not the topic.My position is ONLY that RAZD begged the question of how life arrived, as you put it, toward the end of his post, although he did this by seeming to address the question of the existence of life itself. THAT's my position, and that's my ONLY position.

quote:

---

Re: My answer once again
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Dorfman quotes Percy:
Dorfman writes:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
........evolutionists are refusing to face the self-evident impossibility of something as unlikely as abiogenesis ever happening..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

If you quote, do so accurately and with context. Percy could not have said that. I checked, and indeed he didn't.

---

Indeed, my apologies, indeed!

quote:

---

I believe abiogenesis is possible. But you lack first ingredient, so it is more than proper not to buy into it and to argue against it.

​

What ingredients do you need for abiogenesis?

---

First ingredient.

quote:

---

You are discussing an off topic point. The only point of this thread is RAZD's assuming abiogenesis in the process of supposedly defending it in a debate.

---

In actual fact RAZD was criticising the use of probability arguments against abiogenesis, not arguing for it. If the thread has discussed matters related to that issue it is because you have been less than clear about the issue up to now and so your error has not been obvious.

Could you be more specific? What's the first ingredient?

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

False dichotmy. There are more than two possibilities. Panspermia comes to mind. Further, a creator is unproven, and even if abiogenesis turns out to be bunk, a creator will still remain unproven. We have seen chemical reactions, and self sustaining ones at that, we have yet to see a creator.

quote:

---

First ingredient
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Could you be more specific? What's the first ingredient?

---

I am specific. First ingredient is the one you don't have, from which all matter flows.

Dorfman, Which is what?Given I have to ask the question is indicative that you were somewhat less than specific.Mark

---

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