Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

He was obviously not including creation as a possible method of abiogenesis because he was specifically disputing the claim (in the form of a mathematical model} that abiogenesis could not happen.P.S. Here's a definition of the word: This message has been edited by Faith, 10-05-2005 11:10 PM

sure sounds like Genesis to me.

Except that's not how the term is ever used or there wouldn't be an argument by creationists against the idea of abiogenesis, would there? If you want to give us another term for the spontaneous generation of life without a creator, fine, we'll use that one. However, the "auto" and the "spontaneous" part of the definition clearly exclude a Creator: Why are we getting bogged down in these irrelevant semantics? RAZD was arguing against the creationist contention that abiogenesis doesn't happen.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-05-2005 11:20 PM

Perhaps so, but the fact remains that you have been persistent throughout this thread in making misstatements regarding simple probability. If you don't want to discuss probability then stop addressing the topic in your replies, but if you'd like to finally correct your misconceptions then there are many here who would be willing to help you.--Percy

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.

He couldn't have meant the former because the mathematical model was not computing the probability of life's actually existing. Creationists wouldn't be arguing with that. It's the probability of one theory about HOW it came to exist that it purports to compute.

Am I conceding that the short quote from RAZD’s POTM begged the question about the source of life? No, absolutely not.It merely said that mathematical models are not the reality they attempt to model, and if such a model predicts certain outcomes are impossible and then you observe this predicted impossibility happening then you have to assume your mathematical model is wrong in the way it attempts to model reality.For example if have 2 dice, then the you can safely predict that if both dice are at rest on a flat horizontal surface, the maximum value the upper faces can show is 12. You can also safely predict that values of 13 or higher can never be displayed, right?Now if someone throws 2 dice and a value of 13 or greater is the result what are you to assume? That what has happened is impossible, and that some kind of deity intervened to alter the values on the die to create the impossible, or that some how your prediction was not operating on all the variables that can affect the outcome of a throw of two dice? In other words; that your model of reality is wrong?The prediction I made operated on the assumption that the two dice each had six sides and each side was sequentially numbered from 1 to 6. In reality you can buy die with many different number of sides (frequently used in gaming) and on top of that there is nothing preventing the use of a die with sides numbered 10 to 60 in steps of 10, or any numbering system other than 1-6.RAZD’s quote neither mentioned nor inferred anything to do with the source of life at all. And as has been pointed out (correcting me in the process) that we don’t actually know how life came about and thus we can’t know the factors in its creation so we can’t even begin to mathematically model it. With out a model for abiogenesis to start with how does RAZD’s quote have any bearing on the subject? You are just getting excited and reading into that quote inferences that simply are not there.

I concede all the formal points about probabilities. But they aren't the topic.

Oh for crying out loud. Go read the OP again. Why can't anybody follow the argument anyway.

Then what was it about?

Okay, I've just read the OP again. Just like most everyone else on this thread, it appears to me that you don't understand RAZD's point.The quote in the OP is from a RAZD post about probability, which you don't understand. I think that if you make the effort to understand the probability argument that your misunderstanding will become apparent to you, and you will see that there is no begging of any question. On the other hand, if you continue to avoid understanding the probability argument then you will drive everyone on this thread in circles until we reach post 300.--Percy

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

It was about computing the probability of life's occurring by abiogenesis. I thought you were very clear about this in your own earlier posts.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-06-2005 12:46 AM

This should also answer Percy.There are two ways to read this example, as RR pointed out. I will comment on both in detail: ======The other way to read it is just as absurd: ====== It inferred it for sure. He is answering a specific objection to abiogenesis. His generalization is meant to apply to that specific example. The form of his answer flatly states that this has been observed. It has not.Or, in the other possible but not likely way of reading it, he is answering a supposed objection to the idea that life exists at all. This is obviously absurd. Life has been observed happening, but the model was not addressed to this topic.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-06-2005 12:53 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 10-06-2005 12:59 AM

like I said, reading way too much into it.And if we are to take into account the Whole POTM post and not just the short quote you posted then the example was the spontaneous assemblage of a specific (though abstracted) protein, and not spontaneous creation of life (as I am now aware).And even further; the POTM didn’t predict impossibility at all just adjusted the odds of how improbable the spontaneous assemblage of the abstracted protein was.And if you don’t know the difference between impossible and improbable then, really, this thread is pointless.So your two very shouty readings of my statement are flat-out reading it wrong.