Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

As others have indicated, RAZD was correct.The grandaddy of poorly chosen mathematical models is the one involved in Zeno's paradox. And even then, people understood that the problem had to be a misapplication of the mathematics.

I think you are misreading RAZD there.I read him as saying, that because we have life, we know it happened. Whether God made it happen, or it happened spontaneously, it still happened. And our science likely couldn't tell the difference between "happened spontaneously" and "God made it happen."

I had a pastor, a number of years ago, who said that there was no such thing as "blind random luck". His point was that what we saw as random chance was really the hand of God.My point is that you don't have to look at it as two alternatives. You can take it as two ways of describing the same alternative. Creationist arguments attempt to make it crucial. Since we have no way of accurately estimating the probability, it can't be all that important.

I have to disagree with that. We don't know for sure how to compute the probability. What is clear, is that creationist estimates of the probability are way too high.

"Working on it" won't be a matter of just improving the calculation. What will be involved, will be investigating ways that life, or early proto-life, could have arisen. It is unlikely as fully functioning DNA, as NosyNed indicated in Message 38. Maybe it could have started as simpler RNA. Or maybe it could have started with simple processes involving a relatively few proteins.What has to be investigated, are the possible pathways. The probabilities will be different for each of them. When enough is known, it might well turn out that abiogenesis is quite likely.

You began your post with a quote containing "If you have a mathematical model that ..." Did you notice that "if"?The point is that we DO NOT HAVE a suitable mathematical model. We cannot tell you what the model says cannot happen, because there is no model.Creationists keep coming up with putative mathematical models from which they compute probabilities. These are NOT models of how abiogenesis would have to occur. They are models of particular ways that creationists assumed it would have to occur. At most, such a model shows that it could not have happened in the manner assumed by the model. It does not show that abiogenesis could not have happened by some other means not included in that particular model.

Probabilities are calculated based on some mathematical model. Often the various factors are known, or at least estimatible well enough to be able to make a ball park estimate of the probability.The proper question is whether that particular mathematical model is realistic. Sometimes the estimation is done as part of a reduction ad absurdum, to demonstrate that the mathematical model is unrealistic.The argument that YECs make about natural abiogenesis tends to be of the following form: In practice, the YECs usually state only steps 1 and 4. But steps 2 and 3 would be required for a complete argument. And step 3 is fallacious. You have changed the subject from abiogenesis to evolution.As far as I can tell, nobody is demanding that creation scientists provide a complete theory. What is being requested, is
(a) That there be enough of a theory that it can make credible predictions that are such as can be subject to empirical testing;
(b) That the creationist theory do at least as well as evolution (scientists won't give up a highly effective working theory in exchange for something that barely works and is relatively ineffective).

I guess it is only fair to point out that we are having as much fun laughing at you as you are having laughing at us.

There is another possibility:
3: special creation carried out in such a way that we came about naturally. The evidence all points to 2 or 3.

ROTFLOf course abiogenesis has occurred. We are here, aren't we?The dispute is over whether abiogenesis occurred by purely natural means, or whether it involved intervention by a creator. There isn't any dispute (except from Faith) over whether abiogenesis occurred.

I'm wondering what you mean by "abiogenesis".To me, the word simply means the creation of life from non-life. Thus all creationists support it. What they don't support, is that it occurred naturally.But you seem to mean something completely different.

Interesting. That doesn't sound like nothing to me.

RAZD was clearly including creation as a possible method of abiogenesis (in the post from which this thread is derived).