Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

hehan old professor of mine stated that paradox a little differently:if you take a young man and a young woman and put them 10 feet apart, and every second you halve the distance between them,theoretically they never touchbut they get close enough for all practical purposes.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

No hurry, Faith. In spite of the tone here, I would say we are all really interested in your point. Everyone has a blind spot eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks, Faith, I thought it might be something like this. No, it is evidence that we don't know what the real probabilities are, that we don't know the systems and what the limits on the systems are, that in fact we know so little about the system that there is no way to model it. Noting that one mathematical calculation is grossly in error and then showing the correct form of calculation is to give you (and others) a better basis on which to judge how "unfavorable" the odds are.Yes, I said they were high, but did not say they were {unfavorable\impossible}. In another thread I calculate a ball-park possibility of 1x10⁵⁴ for such chemical reactions to take place, and this would mean (by creationist math) that this molecule would have spontaneously formed 5.39E+41 times, a rather high probability imho.That is, assuming that such calculations have any validity when they are not tested against {reality\evidence\data} in any way. Not quite. What I said was that, regardless of whether it was improbable or not, we have life on this planet, therefore if it was "1 in a brazilian" it still happened, and if it was done by the hand of god then it still happened, and the calculation of improbability has nothing to do with the reality of existence.After a lottery is over, someone has won no matter how bad the odds were. If we were to set up a lottery to pick one person out of all the people alive on the earth today, there would be a winner in spite of the odds being 1 in 6,470,195,208 (6.47x10⁹) which is only 287 times more likely than the molecule. This 1.85E+12 probabilty envelope is really a small number on a {cosmic\geological} scale.The math is not any kind of evidence for reality, using it just shows a lack of understanding of reality.The point was two-fold: one, the math was wrong to start with, and two, it is irrelevant to the real question, because it cannot model that which you don't know. (see the first error listed on the post).Hope that helps.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Neither do probabilities need to be calculated for a sequence of selected random steps. What needs to be done is to study the mechanisms to understand them better and see where they lead, rather than just proclaim that it can't be done.Mathematically the bumble bee cannot fly based on an {urban legend} calculation. If you don't know enough about the system no amount of math is going to improve your understanding. Sorry, I don't buy it, it is just too improbable for me. I believe in a created universe where diversity and the possibility of life was maximized, but where all life grows by the natural laws created with the universe. We don't know what that improbability is. Maybe when all the calculatinos are finally done with all the knowledge possible on this issue that it is 1 in 10.It is entirely possible that the universe was created to make it probable in many places and we just happen to exist in one of them.It is also possible that this happened in this universe by random action and we just happen to live in one that produces life and happen to exist in one of the places where it is possible.The math cannot tell you the answer to those questions, only science and the study of what is possible can do that.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Why?Is "intuition" anything more than some vague world view half formed from what knowledge you have and what beliefs you like to have come true? The track record on intuition is very bad in science, which is where it gets fully tested (and untested it is worthless).Intuition tells you that the odds of winning a lottery are very very poor, but people still buy them again and again. Faith, let's try a slightly different angle on this to see if it helps:What is the probability that there is absolutely no life on earth?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I repeat:What is the probability that there is absolutely no life on earth?Would you agree that it is zero?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And again, what is the probability that there is absolutely no life on earth?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Good.Thus either life evolved or it was created.There is no probability involved anymore: we're here. If it was a looooong shot, then the long shot paid off. Likewise if if was a short putt, a "gimme" if you will.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

why? you agree that the probability of no-life = zero, therefore the probability of life = 1, whether by random act or divine act. this is the default of any and every probabiity that has come to pass, for it cannot be undone.what was the probability that an asteroid would wipe out the dinosaurs after 100's of millions of years of existence? It doesn't matter, because it happened regardless of the probability.the fact is that we are here. period. end argument on probabilities ad nauseum.because the game is over, the winning lottery ticket has been picked and the money has been paid.our existence does not prove (or disprove) a divine creator, it just proves that we are here.assuming that it proves your belief in a creator creating your belief is the ultimate begging of the proverbial question and circular reasoning.it appears that you really do not see this. you are pre-assuming that only one answer is valid, rejecting the other as "IMpossible" and then saying that only one is possible.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

then show that god did not create life through abiogenesis and evolution having created a universe primed for this purpose 13.7 billion years ago. you have yet to show a single fallacy (other than the ones of your own making: argument from incredulity, strawman, etc) That, I don't doubt ... but whether you will have an argument when you do is the question.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.