Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

She means that it's similiar to her argument about the Flood. But, she's misread his initial statement and missed the word "evidence".

I think you are close Mod, but I think it's actually this: Since, I'm pretty sure Faith doesn't support Abiogenisis, and therefore sees not "evidence around" that it has happened.She has, one the other hand, frequently stated that she sees evidence everywhere for the Flood.After all, how else would we get those big oceans?

Okay, I'll take the bait. Yes, the likelihood of abiogenisis is very low. Good thing we are arguing this from Earth and not some barren rock in outer space where it didn't happen.Now, let's have the same discussion about logic, reason, evidence, etc."The logic (reason, evidence, etc) problem for creationists, not for evolutionists, and should be conceded"

Who said they can't? But, arbitrarily true? No. YEC declare x,y,z as facts but have no evidence, no logic, no reason to support it.Why do you believe this?
It says this in a book therefore it's true.How do you know the book is correct?
The book says it's correct.How do you know the book isn't wrong about that?
The book says it's correct.But, the book is clearly wrong about The Flood. There's a lot of evidence from lots of different sources pointing to a 4.5 billion age.
The book says it's correct.Wait, are you maybe just stuck, skipping like a record?
The book says it's correct.Okay, I see. Well, maybe if you were to read OTHER books you'd learn something.
The book says it's correct.Fine, you know what? I'm going to go get a sandwich.
The book says it's correct.You want something?
The book says it's correct.Okay then. Catch ya later.
The book says it's correct.

I have no problem with belief in God. I have a big problem with one source of that belief being touted as being end all be all of all existance.

I'm sure this has been brought up by others on this thread. I jumped ahead a few pages and saw that we are still talking about the exact same thing.Faith, I'll try to make this very simple, the odds against abiogenisis are astronomical. Fortunately, the size of the universe is also astronomical. We have not found life anywhere else (those Mars rocks aside) but it's irrelivant. If life only existed on one planet in the entire universe and it wasn't Earth, then we'd be having this conversation on that planet.Am I assuming abiogenisis? No. I am saying - "there is life here."It's a simple fact. Offer up all the math you like to try to disprove me, the fact this remains there is life here. Give me a period followed by a zillion zeros and a one, there is still life here.You claim it's because God squeezed some clay. Others claim it's because Odin's cow vomited us up. Still others believe that we fell from corn. They are all equally plausible. They are all "true".Math does nothing to prove or disprove them.Why? Because life is here.

Okay, I'll try again.I was watching Oprah once many years ago. The topic was "Do winning the lottery make your life great or awful?"Oprah had a bunch of previous lottery winners on to tell their stories.The odds against winning the lottery are astronomical, but everyone on the stage was a winner. How is that possible?It's possible because the group on the stage consisted only of lottery winners.The same thing is happening here. The odds against abiogenisis are astronomical. As a result there are many many planets without life. However, we are having a talk show about the one (ones) that have life.Just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen.Before I stop, I understand your second point, which is - to paraphrase - "Since it's rare for abiogenisis to happen, therefore it must be magic."Frankly, I don't understand that logic in this. Does magic have a higher probability?

I agree, but I'm conceding the point to Faith to avoid a super complex argument. I'm just trying to show her that even if she's right on all fronts, he conclusion is still wrong

Faith, it seems to me that you are arguing that since the abiogenisis is extremely rare therefore there isn't life on Earth.But there is life on Earth.If, instead what you are arguing is that abiogenisis is extremely rare, and there is life on Earth, therefore there must be some other solution to how life got here, you're missing steps in your logic.The argument is: This can happen. It is rare. Here's an example of it having happened.Your counter argument seems to be: That is rare, therefore this completely unrelated thing must have happened.You are missing this step "This can happen".Show us that your alternative explaination (Creation through magic) can happen, then your stool will have 3 legs. Right now, you've got at best 1 and a half.

But, that doesn't follow logically.If it was impossible, you might be able to argue that it was evidence for a Creator. But, just being improbable is certainly not evidence.Lots of things are improbable.Getting hit by lightning is improbable. But it happens. Does that mean that everyone who gets hit by lightning cheesed off God in some way? Does God particularly dislike people who golf in the rain? Is that the 11th commandment?