Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

RAZD got a POTM from NosyNed for this post, but I just have to comment on this hilarious statement he made: http://EvC Forum: Evolution in the VERY beginning -->EvC Forum: Evolution in the VERY beginningIs anybody but a creationist going to see why this is hilarious?This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 02:19 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 10-06-2005 02:16 AM

Well, nobody got it. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Cry I think. Maybe I'll let it go for the day and make the (no doubt futile) attempt to explain it later.Here's the statement again: Hint: CONTEXT.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 09:45 AM

Would you be willing to email your thought to me before posting it? I mean if you really did get it that will be great support for me, and if you didn't I'm going to have to try to explain something to this whole gallery here who are not going to be open to it no matter how well I explain it, and it would help to know in advance which situation I have to face.

Well, here goes an attempt to fly this thought process against hurricane force evolutionist winds. Ah well.A couple here are in the ballpark (Modulous and Chiroptera? Sorry if I'm wrong) but still not getting what I see in it. I really did laugh out loud when I read through the above. Yes, it's basically a logical fallacy.Through this post RAZD has been arguing about the probabilities involved, just the math Ma'am, claiming that creationists compute outlandishly low probability for abiogenesis or evolution as such. I get the basic idea but I didn't try to grasp his points in any depth. They may be correct -- or not. In any case he admits his own calculations also give highly unfavorable odds.And THEN he blows the whole enterprise with the above statement. "Well duh," he seems to be saying, it DOES exist, so therefore it just ISN'T improbable. That's where I laugh.Well, WHAT isn't improbable? Well, that EVOLUTION brought all that about, rather than a Designer. But that is what is under dispute. That is what is being discussed. It isn't just that life exists, the dispute is about how it came to be, and very low probability for evolutionist processes is evidence for the creationist side. All he is doing here is massive begging of the question, assuming his conclusion in his premise, circular reasoning.What he is saying is there's no point in bothering about the improbabilities as clearly evolution did this! And everybody applauds and thinks he's struck this blow for his team.But of course the improbabilities are raised by creationists to suggest that these things couldn't arise from the processes that evolutionists claim they did. All RAZD ends up saying in answer is, Well they did! Period.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 03:45 PM

So all the fancy math need not be indulged in, just cut to the chase and declare the creationists wrong. Yup, that's really what it amounts to. Quite hilarious all the pretense to deal with the evidence though.

I would think there are too many unknowns to calculate the probabilities accurately myself, but he didn't just say that. He declared that BECAUSE life exists, THEREFORE the probabilities are in favor of its existing which of course means: without benefit of a Creator.Well, this is The Biggest Unknown, and the subject of the debate as well. The probability of life's existing without a Creator MAY be even lower than anyone has so far calculated, if everything that had to have happened were taken into account.Creationism has no problem with the probabilities, only evolutionism does, and he can't just declare the problem null based on his own presuppositions.

But this strikes me as a bit disingenuous, as no probabilities need be calculated if it was done by the hand of God, and we have only these two choices I believe: the creative act of a Mind versus blind random processes. The Creator God of the Bible "spoke" it into existence. The probability is 100%. But the IMprobability of random chemical processes bringing life as we know it into existence is a crucial factor in the debate that you can't just wave away.{Edit to change "probability into "IMprobability"}This message has been edited by Faith, 10-02-2005 08:43 PM

The IMprobability of its happening through blind random processes is a strong argument against that claim and in favor of a Creator. That is the whole discussion in a nutshell. Honestly, the probability factor should be conceded by evolutionists to the creationists.

Well, the context is the main thing. What IS the something the model says cannot happen that the evidence around you says has happened anyway? Not "the existence of life" but the whole package: "the origin of life by random processes." This is major begging of the question. The mathematical model that would say the existence of life itself is improbable would be erroneous in the light of the "evidence around you" that life exists, but nobody is arguing that. But the model that would say the origin of life from random processes is improbable is a quite viable model as there is NO "evidence around you" for that.

It doesn't matter. The probability problem is a problem for evolutionists, not for creationists, and should be conceded. Go on working on it, see if you can get the probability more in your favor, that's fine, but until then it's a big one against the origin of life by random processes.

I am not saying that math doesn't matter. Since there are so many unknowns the math is moot. My objection to what RAZD said wasn't about the math, it was about his skipping from the difficulties of the math to the preposterous assertion that since life exists therefore the probabilities can't be against the random generation of life, which is a staggeringly transparent case of begging the question.Intuitively the odds are against abiogenesis and evolution itself to some astronomical degree, but since intuition isn't math you can just let the creationists go on knowing it's true while you pretend it isn't with all the scientific justification you can muster and keep the creationists marginalized by sheer force of assertion. It OUGHT to be conceded that with the present knowns the probabilities are against you. You don't have to have ALL the facts to make intelligent guesses that this is the case. Compute it from whatever knowns you can muster, it will always come out against you. When you know more, recompute it. All these objections to creationists' computing it at all are just evolutionists declaring their hegemony, nothing more than that.{Edit: P.S., much of the "evidence" for evolution itself is not disputed by creationists at all. The claim is that the evidence is misinterpreted.}This message has been edited by Faith, 10-03-2005 10:10 AM

I hardly expected better, but it's interesting that you respond only to what is really just a side issue. What about RAZD's question-begging? Nobody going to acknowledge that?

The evidence around says that WHAT has happened?-or-What does the model say cannot happen?
And what evidence all around you says that it has?Are you guys addressing what was actually said?Which I put this way: "...the preposterous assertion that since life exists therefore the probabilities can't be against the random generation of life, which is a staggeringly transparent case of begging the question."I can't get anything out of any of your carrying on about the validity of models but your determination to be sure you keep creationists in the category of idiots.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-03-2005 01:34 PM

It wasn't intended to be personally addressed to you despite its apparently being in a post to you, and perhaps it was hyperbolic. The point being that what I said is obvious and how else is one to explain the refusal to recognize it? I don't assume conscious intention. But only robinrohan of this whole crew here can see the very simple point I was making. How explain that? He's no believer, no creationist. I didn't expect even one, so that was quite a gift. But in any case at some point I just stop answering. What's the point? What kind of "productive conversation" is possible after that point? I've made my case many times so far. Can you explain why nobody can see it? Obviously not. In order to do that you'd have to be able to see it first yourself. So I didn't intend anything personal but I do think this phenomenon is not exactly "innocent" on anybody's part, even if the ulterior motives are even hidden from themselves.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-03-2005 09:29 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 10-03-2005 09:30 PM

Appreciate your sheer guts, robinrohan. Thanks.