Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

The OP begs the question. The conclusion only applies to none-God-influenced life-from-nonlife, to the sort that begins naturally. If there was an alternative of special creation, then probabilites would not apply, since presumably God can do most anything.

Here is RAZD's follow-up. This is supposed to show that he was not assuming a naturalistic position for the origin of life beforehand, since if he was, he would be assuming what he's arguing for.But the hand of God doesn't apply when constructing mathematical models. Probabilities only apply when constructing naturalistic models. He is, in effect, saying that since life came about {under his breath, naturalistically}, there must be something wrong with the model, or rather that it does not matter how improbable it is, it happened (under his breath, naturalistically).There is the underlying assumption of a naturalistic explanation.

On the other hand, this whole practice of constructing models of probability doesn't work to advance either side of the argument. One might conclude that the odds of life arising naturalistically are one in a million.Then we have to compare that with the probability of life arising by the hand of God, which, of course, can't be done. What are the odds?It would, I suppose, be an "argument from incredulity" to conclude that life could not arise naturalistically because the odds against it are great, and therefore had to arise by the hand of God, unless we had other evidence in addition to our mathematical model of improbability.

You're welcome. Actually, I have a little problem with the so-called fallacy called the "argument from incredulity."It seems to me that if something is inconceivable, and if that something is assumed as part of a given theory, then the theory has a problem. This would be the case unless the theory is backed up by mathematics, as in quantum theory, which is certainly inconceivable.

Somebody tries to show that some aspect of evolution is inconceivable. This I believe is what ID arguers do. The argument from incredulity--the explanation of the fallacy--says that just because somebody finds something inconceivable, it doesn't mean that an alternative is true.ed
As follows: It is inconceivable that a human being could have evolved from a bacteria. Therefore, life came about by special creation.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-04-2005 05:04 PM

I think I've learned quite a bit on this forum and have also improved my argumentative skills, so I don't find it useless. But perhaps your agenda is different.

So you are suggesting that "inconceivability" is always subjective?What if one finds something mysterious? Is that not a problem with the theory? For example, the evolution of consciousness. I find that mysterious. Is my reaction merely subjective?

There are only two choices:
1. special creation (the idea of being made by aliens just sets the question back a step).
2. came about naturallyIs there any reason to prefer one choice to another?

Yes. Any reason to prefer one to the other?

I gather from your post that there is no reason to prefer one alternative over the other.

One Translation:If you have a mathematical model that says that life did not generate spontaneously, whereas in fact life has generated spontaneously, then obviously something is wrong with the mathematics.Another translation:If you have a mathematical model that life cannot occur, and in fact life has occurred, then obviously something is wrong with the mathematics.It appeared to me that RAZD meant the former. Why? Because the model was about life occurring spontaneously.

Then what was it about?

Thanks for the explanation. You really cleared that matter up.

Faith is rather prone to anger.

You're not a mod, Faith. It comes across as extreme anger.When a mod does it, it is an unemotional warning.