Posted: Mar 19, 2010 8:02 am
UnderConstruction wrote:rainbow wrote:Rumraket wrote:It seems rainbow wants to erect the same discussion that took place on RD.net.
While Calilasseia's example is propably not an accurate representation of the whereabouts, amount and type of molecules vital to the formation of life, the underlying point is still valid in that it highlights actually fallacious thinking in common creationist canards erected against abiogenesis and evolution.
The article attacks the Creationist's argument by pointing out that it is based on unsupported assumptions.
Nothing wrong with that.
...but then it proceeds to make its own calculations based on unsupported assumptions.
It reads to me more like a hypothetical situation, designed to illustrate the kind of numbers potentially involved. It certainly does not read like and account of a specific abiogenesis event. As such, a few assumptions and oversimplifications are reasonable as long as they do not detract from the point being made. The numbers actually involved in just about any chemical reaction, even a relatively modest one, make the typical creationist serial trials canard look very silly indeed.
What is being done is creating a silly argument to disprove another silly argument. Sorry but it doesn't work.
I am sure if Cali were to make assertions about how the actual event of abiogenesis might have occurred, we could expect to see a little more rigour and a lot more supporting evidence.
We can only live in hope.