Oh those clever etcetera--What RAZD said

I apologize to you and to any others whose posts I haven't read through carefully, which probably explains why I haven't addressed all the points you keep raising. There is a LOT to read through and I do sometimes just pick out particular posts to answer in detail and skim others for main points, and may miss a lot. I also intend to get back to them but sometimes the accumulated backlog is just beyond me. I even now intend to get back to them but I can't promise anything.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-07-2005 05:32 PM

I assumed nothing. There IS a contradiction in the text. I demonstrated it. The problem seems to be that you share the confusion between statements about the origin of life and the existence of life which is what led to the question-begging. I'm sorry PaulK, I disagree with your assessment and refuse to read another word you have to say on this subject since as usual you have become abusive on top of misunderstanding what is being said.

It isn't in principle impossible, it simply is not the case here. PS, RR and I agree on what he was saying. He was probably being a bit careless or he wouldn't have put it quite as he did, but he did say the same wrong thing TWICE, equating abiogenesis with the simple existence of life, which does show that in his mind they are as good as synonymous. I just read Parasomnium's latest post and agree completely. He is saying exactly what I've been saying.I have little patience with your answer but I will try to struggle through it.

I might be. As I've been reviewing everybody's input on this, I realize that you come at it differently than I do. I agree with you however, and you do support my point but from a somewhat different angle.

I have been struggling through both threads, copying out posts of various contributors (holmes, modulous, razd, parasomnium, robinrohan) with the plan of answering all the posts of each in one summary post, but it has become overwhelming and I am giving up. For one thing a few seem to have changed their approach over a series of posts, so answering the earlier ones may not be relevant anyway.If anyone wants to attempt to restate his current position in the most pithy terms, we can start from there again.Please give your post a title that shows whose it is or at least what your main point is so I can keep track better.I think Parasomnium has understood most clearly what I'm saying, and Robinrohan has somewhat understood it, but I'm not sure about holmes and Modulous although both said there's SOME case to be made for my position. (Somebody mentioned a post of Modulous' as particularly pertinent but I never got to that one.)I don't see anything to the opposition posts, frankly, all a matter of addressing the science/probability factor in RAZD's post, which is not relevant to my point, or some kind of misunderstanding that I haven't pinned down. So if my opponents will try to restate their case again in the most condensed way possible, let's run this thread out to the end.I don't mind doing this myself, although I'm sure others are burnt out on it. I just don't have it in me to review the whole thing from the beginning and try to catch up on posts I didn't deal with in depth.
====So, if anyone is interested in starting over from this point, here is the original post of RAZD's, with the relevant parts bolded, and I am including the previous paragraph in case it makes the context clearer: RAZD's post #41 on thread Evolution in the VERY beginningIn saying RAZD is begging the question that is under dispute I am not focusing on the scientific aspects of the mathematical model or probability as such. The model could be merely the opinion that abiogenesis "cannot happen," and the situation would be the same.Thanks.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 02:33 AM

That's overt conscious intentional bias. I thought my point was that EvC's bias is not all that conscious but shows up in assumptions and question-begging they aren't even aware they are expressing. I'm also not accusing anyone of hypocrisy. When I laugh at discovering the question-begging in a post like RAZD's it's not an attack on RAZD, just a recognition that the cards are stacked against creationism so unconsciously and thoroughly it's actually funny.----------------
I don't want my Message 60 ("Let's start over") to get buried though, as I'd like the thread to take off from that point now if people are willing, so I will refer to it here until everyone sees it.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 02:39 AM

Thank you for being willing to restate your case. Yes, it IS begging the question all by itself, as I have shown over and over, needing only that people remember that the context was a mathematical model about the improbability of abiogenesis -- which even this expanded section doesn't include, though maybe that should be included for the sake of clarity. All I needed was the short paragraph I started out with to show the question-begging, however, but the whole section does give more context for those who need it. And why do you think I myself posted the entire section in Message 60, which you seem to be ignoring as if you are correcting me? And I bolded relevant parts of it too, in order to help emphasize what I'm trying to get at. Your version leaves out the bolding. So far so good. "Life could indeed be a highly unlikely event on the grand cosmic scale. ...To argue from the existence of life ..." Meaning: That life ever came to be at all by sheerly self-originating means (implying abiogenesis) is "the highly unlikely event." He certainly doesn't have Creation in mind since, given a Creator, there is nothing unlikely about it. You can't "know in an omniscient sense" that the existence of life is due to abiogenesis but this appears to be the message here. To assert such a thing is definitely begging the question since that is exactly what is in dispute. The phrase "to argue from the existence of life" is a misrepresentation of the mathematical model he is disputing, which was not arguing anything from the existence of life itself but only arguing about the METHOD OF ORIGIN of life. This shows that in his mind there is only one possible origin of life, abiogenesis, and that the existence of life itself is its evidence, and the entire argument against it is dismissed by this choice of words. This IS begging the question. What he is discussing is how "evidence all around you" for "something" invalidates a model that says that this "something" "cannot happen." As an abstract statement there is nothing wrong with it, but the problem is that it is in a whole post about a particular mathematical model that purports to show the improbability of ABIOGENESIS, which is the "something that cannot happen" but by saying there is "evidence all around you" for this "something that cannot happen" he cannot possibly be talking about abiogenesis as there is no such evidence all around us for abiogenesis. THEREFORE he MUST be talking about "the existence of life" itself, which he has already introduced in the same confused manner in the preceding paragraph, as if in his mind the very existence of life itself PROVES abiogenesis, WHICH IS BEGGING THE QUESTION UNDER DISPUTE. {Edit: And again, he can't be talking about the "existence of life" either, as that misrepresents the math model which is NOT about the "existence of life" but about abiogenesis.}I thoroughly covered this already many many times and the last time I did so was in my Message 31, showing the possible ways the various terms in this paragraph could be construed in relation to the context of the mathematical model being discussed, and how he has mingled the terms so that the paragraph makes no sense in relation to the actual example no matter how you juggle it. This is because he ASSUMES that abiogenesis has occurred and to his mind the mere existence of life itself is evidence that it has occurred. This begs the question the model he has been arguing with was intended to dispute. Nobody is reading anything backwards. The "vague" language is itself the vehicle for the question-begging as it proves he thinks that abiogenesis is practically synonymous with the fact that life obviously exists, making abiogenesis a foregone conclusion, thus dismissing out of hand any argument whatever about the improbability or impossibility of abiogenesis. RAZD obviously THOUGHT he was just demonstrating some common errors. But in the process he exposed his own inability to separate his argument from the assumption he aims to prove. I suggest that your way of reading it and inability to see the question-begging merely demonstrate that you share the same confusion I've identified in RAZD that amounts to the question-begging. That is, you have the same trouble thinking of the existence of life apart from the assumption that it arose somehow by natural means from non-life to life.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 09:53 AM

Oh lighten up. Laughing about a case of buried question-begging is not laughing at the whole enterprise of science for pete's sake, or even at RAZD's arguments about probability.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 09:44 AM

I see it as I see it and your analysis just seems to me to skirt the issue and contribute to the question-begging. The reason isn't important so just ignore my ruminations about that. But the reason I didn't address any of your posts before is that they do not address the point. It is possible I suppose that I'm just not following what you are saying, but certainly you are not getting what I am saying, and I'm content to leave it at this.{Edit: I GET that you are trying to place the paragraph in context, but I haven't ignored the context, it's simply not relevant to the point I'm making. Those two paragraphs -- the one alone but the two together certainly -- amount to question-begging, and it doesn't matter that RAZD committed the fallacy in the process of discussing the ins and outs of mathematical models in relation to reality.I haven't suggested or even thought that your view is dishonest, don't know where you are getting that. I don't think RAZD's is either.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 10:33 AM

Basically all you are doing is insisting that those two paragraphs are generic or abstract simply because they are part of a series of points RAZD is making about mathematical models in relation to reality in a general sense. That doesn't float because the context is his argument with a specific mathematical model that is misrepresented by his generic point and thus begs the question under dispute.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 10:50 AM

I GOT this already. I GOT this already. I GOT this already. This is what I meant by generic or abstract. You may assume anything. You are making an abstract point. I don't know how "omniscient" fits. He is making an abstract point and therefore no specifics are needed in his generalization. NEVERTHELESS, such an abstraction must WORK with the specifics to be valid and his does not, it falsifies the discussion that is on the table. I GOT THIS ALREADY. But you obviously did not get one thing I have said. I KNOW IT IS. I have said this numerous times, that in the abstract there is nothing wrong with his statement, it is only when it is applied to the example that you see its question-begging. But you are wrong, he DOES NOT stick to the abstract, he brings in the concept of "life's being a highly unlikely event on the grand cosmic scale" and speaks of "arguing from the existence of life." CLEARLY he is still addressing the topic of abiogenesis and his remarks about mathematical models in the abstract are to be applied to that topic. And even if he HADN'T mentioned it, obviously in context his remarks should be applied to that topic and when they are they are falsified; they misrepresent the model and they beg the question that he is disputing.The "something that doesn't happen" that he imputes to the mathematical model can only refer to abiogenesis, unless he is to misrepresent that model, but the "something for which there is evidence all around us" cannot refer to abiogenesis, it must refer to the existence of life as such, and this ends up begging the question.This is the logical form of his generalization:Premise: You claim something can't happen
Argument: But you have evidence all around you that it has.
Conclusion: Therefore your premise is false.In the abstract this is true. But the premise in this case is that Abiogenesis can't happen, and the argument CAN'T be that you have evidence all around you that abiogenesis has happened. But his claim that there is evidence that falsifies the original claim is question-begging as clearly he has the existence of life as such in mind, is misrepresenting the model to be claiming that life can't even exist, and therefore he is treating abiogenesis as a foregone conclusion, which is begging the question. If it does not have a direct application to the model the whole post is about, it is a false generalization. And as I have demonstrated over and over and over, the generalization misrepresents the mathematical model and begs the question of the whole discussion when it is applied to it -- and it MUST be applied to it to make sense. You aren't seeing anything. His bringing up life in the preceding paragraph ties it back to the discussion that you are trying to untie it from and already shows that he is having a problem distinguishing between the existence of life and the way life originated.I refer you back to my Message 60 and Message 31 both, and I consider the discussion over. I'm sure you will claim victory as you always do, but you are wrong.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 04:01 PM

All that is not begging the question, it is what you intended to say, yes, but you ignore what you said unintentionally in the process, which did beg the question. Obviously you and others here have not bothered to understand what I have written. I will not repeat it.{Edit: But I will link my statements on it in Message 31, Message 60, and Message 76.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 09:04 PM

The quotes in question logically do not allow for Creation, RAZD, although you assert it from time to time in other places. It would be good of you to rethink those quotes. The mathematical model was not computing the probability of there being life, of life's existing, but of its arising out of non-life naturally, or in other words of abiogenesis. I have said this I don't know how many times already. For you to speak in terms of the probability of life's existing is to misrepresent your opponent's mathematical model in this respect, no matter how erroneous that model may in fact be scientifically.You are begging the question of abiogenesis by appearing to equate the mere existence of life with abiogenesis. You did this in at least two different ways in the two paragraphs that have been quoted.I am sure it was a mere slip of the tongue, though you did it at least twice which certainly implies a strong unconscious commitment to the idea, and it does put creationists unfairly behind the eight ball, and with all the ammunition supporting your mistake this is just one more example of the multiple reasons why there is no point in any creationist ever raising a point at EvC ever.This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 09:02 PM

What he INTENDED to do and THOUGHT he was doing is a completely other subject, as in actual FACT what he DID say in the TWO PARAGRAPHS quoted ad nauseum here, begs the question. It doesn't matter that the specific focus was a particular protein, the basic topic was whether life in any form can arise from non-life, and it doesn't matter whether the probabilities computed were erroneous or not, the basic topic was whether life in any form can arise from non-life. How long are you guys going to continue to evade the issue? You'd think RAZD was charged with some heinous crime instead of mere question-begging the way you contort yourselves to ignore what I've demonstrated.

So you flat-out deny what has been quoted from you time and time again, about how the existence of life can't be improbable or impossible considering that life in fact does exist, falsely imputing that claim to your opponent's probability model. How do you justify such deceitfulness? Would it kill you to be wrong?This message has been edited by Faith, 10-08-2005 11:49 PM