>>14164753>Ok, but that depends on the context.We're talking about a specific context in which it does.
>Thats why its retarded to explain a symphony in terms of abiogenesis.You asked where Mozart ultimately came from, not for an explanation of a symphony.
>So youre conceding that it is viable to cite Mozart as an explanation for music?Nothing I said implied that, nor do I care. You confused the lack of an explanation for life without abiogenesis with asking "why" over and over.
>Reductio ad absurdum to show how retarded it is to say that Design in biology has no value whatsoever.That doesn't follow, nor does it track with what you said. You said the question "why is it possible for non-living things to give rise to living things?" implies "that explaining life has zero explanatory power if you cant even describe its preconditions in the first place." Explain what this has to do with design.
>If you can come up with some identical P(x) for all x, then P is meaningless.I don't know what you mean by P or x, this is meaningless.
>So simply coming up with an arbitrary explanation has no relation to actual plausibility of truth.How is abiogenesis arbitrary or implausible?
>That was in the context of me demonstrating reductio ad absurdum, ie showing everything can be ad hoc explained.But you didn't demonstrate that. I don't think you understand what reductio ad absurdum means. You asked a question, the question was answered, and then you claimed the question implied something about explanatory power and preconditions, which it didn't. Bizarre.
>if you actually engaged in logical debateProjection.
>instead of dodging like a little bitchWhat did I dodge?
>So I assume you think teleology is impossible?I don't know what you even mean by "impossible" in this context. Teleology is when you assume function implies design. This is a fallacy.
