Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

I don't bold my words out of anger but for emphasis. The mods bold and upsize their warnings and that is what I was doing.

I suggest you quote the part of the post which indicates that there is an argument for abiogenesis instead of a criticism of probability arguments. I can't see one - and I don't beleive there is any such statement in the post. And no, the quote in your OP isn't it - that's clearly an attack on the use of probabilty argumentsBut then your assertion that RAZD considered the probability calculation in the post to be valid was an even more blatant falsehood - since it required ignoring the preceding text that explicitly denied the possiblity of making a valid calculation

No. Panspermia offers a third. What if life components have allways existed?What if they are just another thing in the universe?Further, abiogenesis is far from spontaneus generation. We are talking about known chemical reactions. They are happening everywhere.The reason this whole probability argument is dumb is because you are essentially arguing from incredulity "I can't belive abiogenesis happend, it's mathmaticaly improvable, therefore god."Look at our solar system? Calculate the probabilities of a planet like Jupiter forming, or mars, or earth. I bet it's pretty astronomical, yet there is no reason to belive that similar planets aren't located thrughout the galaxy.Same with life. Just because we have only one example of it, is no reason to think that there aren't more. Showld we ever be lucky enugh to find life on another world your arguemnt would be moot. Lest of course you want to possit a planet hopping god.Heck... what would you do if we encounterd aliens that posited a different god than yours? That's neither here nor there....My previous statement stands. You have a false dichotomy, further you are begging the question. Get rid of abiogenesis all together, it gains no grownd for your possition. Your god is an unknown.

Yes, but your topic has no purpose. It's petty quibbling. Should you disprove abiogenesis, you are left with the same mystery.You want to fill that gap with a mysterious god. It's dumb. You won't get anywhere with it.This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-06-2005 11:14 AM

Then that is an argument for naturalistic causes of life, to be classed on the side of spontaneous generation. Life is being spontaneously generated everywhere? That's what the term refers to. Why are you objecting to it? I am not arguing the probability argument, merely stated my belief that the extreme improbability of abiogenesis is an argument for a Creator.But what I am *arguing* is only that RAZD begged the question, assumed abiogenesis in the process of supposedly arguing for it.

You're not a mod, Faith. It comes across as extreme anger.When a mod does it, it is an unemotional warning.

Well, you are incorrect. It is NOT an arguemnt for the creator, just an arguemnt against abiogenesis.BTW, I agree with you. I think life is a highly improvable event. I personaly don't know what brought it about. Though I think abiogenesis is a possibilty, I am skeptical of it.As far as a creator is concerned, I highly doubt that. I havent seen any gods lately, till I do, I am reticent to hypothesize one. Where as abiogenesis is highly improvable, a god is infinetly so. Yes, but you possition does no better. Isn't there ALLWAYS a question to beg when it comes to science? I mean, we can allways ask why, and how. We can allways do it.

What I meant to say was that the method of its arrival is the question that is being begged.

The line you quoted was not from the post where you said I was begging the question. Please admit you are being disengenuous.As it stands, the quote is not question begging. I am beginning to wonder now if you even know what that term means. You seemed to have it pegged right in the paraphrase, but you clearly miss the mark here.You may not have liked what terms I used, but they were correct.The only evidence we have for special creation (lets say "the prime requirements for special creation") are found within religious texts. There are many different ones and all religious groups dispute the authenticity of the other groups' books. Is this true or not?As far as abiogenesis goes the prime requirements for that theory are observable and are not in dispute (chemicals and chemical interactions). That is also true is it not? You do agree we have chemicals and reactions right?In both cases we do not have any idea of the exact mechanism, thus they both fail on that account. But abio at least has all its required (posited) elements established. The other does not. Is this not true? I made two arguments in that area. The point was either it is pushed back for all or pushed back for none. Generally for science it is pushed back for all, since we are curious buggers. But if you want to be a true believer, that's fine, only then logically speaking the line does not get set back for aliens either.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Translation:
Just because an event is improbable doesn't mean it's impossible. An event could be as improbable as you like but can still happen. In point of fact it has happened.It's no evidence for special creation that the spontaneous generation of life is improbable.And if a model says that an event cannot occur when it fact it has occurred, then obviously the model is wrong.What is it that has occurred that has been claimed to be either improbable or impossible? The spontaneous generation of life.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-06-2005 11:10 AM

And that is clearly an attack on probability arguments and NOT an argument for abiogenesis.Therefore this does not support Faith's assertion that RAZD was arguing for abiogenesis.

No, he was assuming it.

I'm not convinced that that is true. Your "translation" certainly doesn't correspond to anything explicit in the text.

"Extreme" anger? Well, then I'm very sorry -- I simply wanted it to be noticed. Perhaps impatience, anxiety that the thread is coming to an end and few have addressed the topic, but I admit even that is wrong of me.

I thought it was from that post Message 194, no? If not, then it's another post where you were also begging the question. So what was the post you are referring to if not this one?This message has been edited by Faith, 10-06-2005 12:43 PM