Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,867 Year: 4,124/9,624 Month: 995/974 Week: 322/286 Day: 43/40 Hour: 2/7


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Origin of Life ⇒

mihkel4397: Fred Hoyle's calculation of probability of abiogenesis

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   mihkel4397: Fred Hoyle's calculation of probability of abiogenesis
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 23 of 50 (344326)
08-28-2006 2:38 PM 		Reply to: Message 8 by Sumer
08-27-2006 12:40 PM

Sumer writes:
​
Fowler also thought that Hoyle's model of 7.65 MeV resonance was a crock. Luckily for him, Hoyle persuaded him into running an experiment. The result--a Nobel prize for Fowler (while Hoyle was disgracefully "overlooked" for this prize).
All nice and true, but completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You are commiting a serious fallacy here. The fact that one of Hoyle's model turned out to be correct has no bearing whatsoever on wheather another model will turn out to be correct or crook. Each model has to live or die based on its own merits. As repeatedly pointed out to you, the model at hand (The one about abiogenesis) is clearly junk.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Sumer, posted 08-27-2006 12:40 PM Sumer has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Sumer, posted 08-28-2006 4:37 PM fallacycop has replied
  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 26 of 50 (344506)
08-28-2006 10:48 PM 		Reply to: Message 24 by Sumer
08-28-2006 4:37 PM

Sumer writes:
​
Didn't I say "also" to indicate a different model? Didn't I specify the other model? Didn't I show the relevance that it was also originally rejected? Did I claim that the model in question should be automatically correct because of his carbon synthesis model? Didn't I say that his currently discussed model can be wrong?
The point is that the carbon sintese model is completely irrelevent to the question at hand and bringing it up is just a red hearing.
​
The probability calculation is wrong because it is calculating the probability of something that is not relevant to the theory of evolution. (a strawman)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Sumer, posted 08-28-2006 4:37 PM Sumer has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Sumer, posted 08-29-2006 4:27 AM fallacycop has replied
  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 30 of 50 (344618)
08-29-2006 6:47 AM 		Reply to: Message 28 by Sumer
08-29-2006 4:27 AM

Sumer writes:
​
The model is irrelevent, the treatment (attitude) of the models is not. If you read carefully, you'll see that I spoke about the treatment of the model and drew parallel to the treatment of the current model.
It still is irrelevant
​
The probability calculation is wrong because it is calculating the probability of something that is not relevant to the theory of evolution. (a strawman)
​
Did you bother to read what we were debating over here?
Is that your only answer? Did you bother to think about what I said?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Sumer, posted 08-29-2006 4:27 AM Sumer has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Sumer, posted 08-29-2006 2:12 PM fallacycop has replied
  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 35 of 50 (344862)
08-29-2006 7:27 PM 		Reply to: Message 31 by Sumer
08-29-2006 2:12 PM

Sumer writes:
​
We were discussing OOL calculation by Hoyle. What does TOE have to do with it? Where did we discuss it in this post? Isn't it true that the majority of the evolutionists SPECIFICALLY draw a distinction between abiogenesis and speciation?
the calculation is also irrelevant for the theory of abiogenesis.
Let me play a little game over here. Let's assume that I made your comment (changing the word "wrong" for "right," of course).
​
"The probability calculation is RIGHT because it is calculating the probability of something that IS relevant to the theory of evolution."
there is no symmetry here. If something is irrelevant, it is wrong to apply its conclusions even if there are no obvios math mistakes. On the other hand, if something is relevant, that does not make its conclusions necessarily correct.
​
In other words, the standard for something being correct is not symmetric to the standard of it being wrong. For something to be correct ALL its logical steps must be correct. For something to be wrong it is enough that ONE step be wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Sumer, posted 08-29-2006 2:12 PM Sumer has not replied
  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5548 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 37 of 50 (344878)
08-29-2006 8:10 PM 		Reply to: Message 36 by JonF
08-29-2006 8:02 PM

Re: Stellar nucleosynthesis
Nitpick: Iron is made in ordinary stars like the Sun, although most of it is made in larger stars. It's heavier elements that require supernovae.
Not all ordinary stars ever get to the point of making iron. only the heavier ones do. And even if they do, we will never get our hands on this iron unless they go supernovae.
​
Edited by fallacycop, : typo
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 08-29-2006 8:02 PM JonF has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024