Oh those clever etcetera--What RAZD said

Have you been to any of the many Christian/Creationist run forums where they run the pretence of debating the subjects we debate here? If there is any bias shown here it truly pales into insignificance compared to the brutal castration of any kind of challenge to dogma on many, many Christian sites. People get banned for simply saying “you are wrong” and threads get deleted if somehow they let a Non-Creo make a salient point against the established dogma.I have been to many discussion forums and on the whole it is the creos that have the killer wipe-out bias. And if, on the odd occasion a Non-Creo get’s caught with his/her pants down and showing a little bias, then please forgive our (for the most part) unintentional hypocrisy.

Sorry, but I thought your point was that the Evos were merely toying with the Creos for fun without any respect or tolerance of their views, from a position of total bias, beyond bias(message28)When it was hinted that these views of lack of respect, intolerance and an operating position of total bias could be equally applied to the Creos you took the high ground, as if that was not the kind of thing the Creos did.I took umbrage at this, as I have seen just as much lack of respect, intolerance and deep bias from the Creos as I have from the Evos. and usually, in my experience the Creos are the worst offenders in this respect. If that is overt bias, then it’s overt bias from years of experience and evidence, personal and historical. If you need an extreme example then please read up on the inquisition (which was card stacking in the other direction that was not even remotely funny).If there was truly the lack of respect and tolerance you suggested then sites like EvC would not even exist.

Reading back; beyond RAZD’s post, to the posts by Ned and SirIan this whole thing was dealing with a questionable mathematical probability model of the random assemblage of a protein (which was, wrongly, being used to argue against Abiogenesis) . Though proteins are inexorably tied to life they are not life and thus the model under discussion was not Abiogenesis but the probability of the formation of a protein through random sequential connections.RAZD was simply pointing out the common errors in the way these calculations are done despite the fact that these calculations are invalid anyway due to the fact that we are mostly guessing about the mechanisms required in the first place.So if the model under discussion was not actually Abiogenesis then he couldn’t have been BtQ even if you chose to read it that way.

{my bold}If the basic topic is ”life from non-life’ why do you make the assumption that his inference has to be that of Abiogenesis over Creation? After all Creation was also life from non-life. God created Adam out of the non-living earth. Abiogenesis says non-living matter somehow became living matter. There is essentially no difference between the two save for the hypothesis as to HOW.Where you have gone wrong is making the assumption on RAZD’s behalf as to his meaning of the origin of life, putting abiogenesis into his meaning by YOUR assumption of a nonexistent unspoken subconscious bias against creation. It is YOUR assumption of abiogenesis that is BtQ not his. It is your assumption that is confusing you as to why everyone else can’t see what is obvious to you, because you are making the assumption of abiogenesis not RAZD.