Oh those clever etcetera--What RAZD said

{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.

Faith, you really just don't get it. It is really totally and completely, boringnly irrelevant what the probability is or was, because it is a fact that life exists.Therefore, if it happened by abiogenesis it beat the odds (or was assisted along the way). If it didn't happen by abiogenesis, then the probability had absolutely nothing to do with it. Either way same end result: observed reality, regardless of the probability. What I showed was that the "opponent's probability model" in question was full of logical and mathematical errors and unstated assumptions and ignored whole segments of possibility that a valid model would include.All that the extremely bad (if not dishonest) model argument shows to me is that the person(s) making such an extremely bad (if not dishonest) argument (for whatever reason) are not credible sources for trustworthy information.It certainly does not "prove" that abiogenesis happened. Just that the calculation that were made are invalid.The real probability for abiogenesis is not known. It could be 1 in a billion, a really easy case to realize given the size and expanse of time in the universe. We don't know. We won't really even begin to hope of having a clue until we find other life on other planets (or moons). The deceitfulness that I see is in the misrepresentations of what I have said.Personaly I see a universe intentionally primed for life with a maximized diversity of environments, of which we just happen to be one ... but that is a separate issue. Not on my own mistakes: I have been, and have owned up. This is not the case here.The best you have is a word usage that may be loose, but the meaning is not changed, the argument is not changed, the result is not changed, and the idiocy of going on ad nauseum over it is not changed.If that is a victory for you, then by all means break out the band wagon and light the fire-crackers.Excuse me if I don't get excited by someone who cannot understand the argument and then calls me a liar based on that misunderstanding: I have clarified what I meant several times and I have better things to do than waste any more time on this idiocy.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*09*2005 01:33 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Its an explanation, a description, and as such cannot and does not falisify anything.For all those I GOT IT's in between each part of my description, you simply do not seem to get it. The specific topic was fallacies of models. That is then applied to abio. The fact that you think I have not understood that that was your position, when I have already stated that that is begging the question... in no uncertain terms... means you are the one having a problem. You can't even seem to get when I am agreeing with you, or how.The difference is in whether he was actually making the above argument. I said I can see how that could be read into it, but then suggested that was an error and why it was an error. Mark has already left supporting you after reading my argument, and RAZD has since come on to make the post more than abundantly clear.That you still hold your position, rather than admitting that it was an honest misread, shows something other than devotion to honesty. You apparently want to believe that your interpretation is inerrant, over the reasons given by others for their interpretation as well as the very author of the post.I suppose that is fitting if you want to believe you are always right, and we are a group unwilling to admit one error (though I have pointed out I have been in running disagreement with RAZD elsewhere, and several evos did support your claim).This is not fair treatment, especially to yourself.

---

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

I believe I'm right and you are wrong but there's no reason to argue it any more. Cheers.Thanks to Parasomnium who DID get it. And RR who sort of got it.

Closing it down.

---