[quote=chance,May 15 2007, 01:33 PM]
I sometimes write ‘proof’ erroneously when I mean evidence, I usually write it when I’m describing an experiment (not to imply that an experiment ‘proves conclusively, but it is a method of ‘proving’). It’s just a bit of loose phraseology on my part. So my statement stands with that qualifier.
No, I have not changed my mind on evidence of God, neither have I changed my mind re abiogenesis.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that there is no evidence of God, yet you see evidence for abiogenesis?
[QUOTE]I have repeatedly shown you my evidence, we have discussed it as far as it is practically possible on this forum, what has yet to be presented is the evidence that supports your claims, re ID, beauty, and purpose, these subjects are lacking in evidence! Whenever I request the evidence the best you can do is to attempt a diversion and claim my evidence is weak! This continual avoidance at answering some very simple questions is paramount to an admission that you cannot answer them.[/QUOTE]
What you perceive as a "diversion" is nothing of the kind. Everything in the universe proclaims the existence of a supreme being, and you have the audacity to suggest that no evidence exists. This is not scientific objectivity... it is blatant denial. When I present evidence such as the beauty and complexity of nature, you don't confront the evidence... you ignore it.
[QUOTE]Ok, for the very last time, these process and evidences in order.
The philosophy from which will come questions that hopefully science will be able to investigate.
Question, how does life appear? Answer:
a. created ex nihlo, or
b. arrived in simple form (panspermia), or
c. abiogenesis
d. request you for additional scenarios - non forthcoming.[/QUOTE]
You've ignored the true pathway to life... God created life from existing matter. There is nothing in the scriptures that suggest that it was created "ex nihlo".
[QUOTE]Question, from the list above, which have a possibility of being investigated using science?[/QUOTE]
Before I answer this, you need to define what science is and who decided what it can or cannot investigate.
[QUOTE] No - science has no method of directly investigating phenomenon that doesn’t manifest it’s self in the natural world.[/QUOTE]
Who decided that?
[QUOTE]Qualifiers for the above. A scientific theory must by definition be supported by positive evidence else it is only conjecture, only abiogenesis has the promise to do so.[/QUOTE]
Chance, do you consider yourself "open-minded"? You accept abiogenesis because it's the only choice, not because there is any evidence to support it. You apparently worship "science", a tool upon which you place artificial limits as to what it can and cannot investigate.
[QUOTE]the evidence for abiogenesis
a. Experimentation has produced chemicals essential for life and currently manufactured by life from base elements, using estimates of primitive earth conditions.
b. Replicating molecules have been manufactured.
c. Examination of existing life reveals a complex arrangement of seemingly separate formes of life lending weight to a symbiotic stage in evolution, when individual elements were individuals.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for posting the "evidence" for your case. The reason I "forgot" it is because everything you've referenced amounts to a whole lot of nothing. Perhaps I can remind you that any scientific theory can be debunked by finding one fatal flaw. The impossibilities of genesis of single cell life are too numerous to count. Yet you continue to cling onto a phantom because you see no other choice.
[QUOTE]Self evidences, and others
a. Science is experimenting on abiogenesis, and not on creation.[/QUOTE]
Who is experimenting on abiogenesis? Liberal biologists trying to maintain tenure? How does experimentation provide evidence of abiogenesis? Active investigation does not translate into any form of evidence.
[QUOTE]b. The courts have declared that ID is not science but a thinly disguised creationism.[/QUOTE]
Now you're really getting desperate!... suggesting that we need to trust lawyers and political correctness in our quest for truth.
[QUOTE]c. evidences for creationism have been limited to attacks on evolution/abiogenesis, strawman, and incredulity arguments. Not a single scrap of positive evidence has been presented so far in this discussion.[/QUOTE]
Chance, I'm going to cut to the chase...
Your assertion that disproof of evolution does not constitute proof of ID is patently false. If you found an arrowhead in the dirt, would that constitue positive evidence that it was created and not formed by random processes? Disproving materialism indeed provides evidence of God because it leaves only one other choice. If you think there are other choices, please list them. If you can't, then it is obvious that you are clinging to ideology, not science.
As far as "incredulity", I fail to see your point. Science is not supposed to require faith, as you keep stating. So why are you faulting me for incredulity? If you can't provide evidence to stand on its own, why should I believe?
[QUOTE] No one can propose a method (given a hypothetical even footing with science including a monitory grant) to investigate ID.[/QUOTE]
Disproving evolution proves ID, because that is the only other possible choice left. That is a self evident fact agreed upon by every clear thinking person.
[QUOTE] What is it about IC that supports it being a product from ID? list is the evidence?[/QUOTE]
Irreducible complexity suggests a creator, as Darwin himself recognized.
[QUOTE]What is it about beauty that supports it being a product from ID? list is the evidence.[/QUOTE]
I can't list evidence that will be accepted by a cynical, materialistic atheist who believes that everything including moral values are relative.
[QUOTE]What is it about purpose that supports it being a product from ID? list is the evidence.[/QUOTE]
NDT is founded on lack of purpose, and the universe exhibits purpose everywhere.
[QUOTE]Sexual selective pressures can explain a peacocks feathers, else why is the peahen not similarly endowed? Experiments have shown that the female birds (and other species) prefer flamboyant colour and behaviour, it is reasoned that any individual that can afford to expend time an energy in display is virile and healthy.
Mutual benefit explains surgeonfish (symbiotic relationship have survival value)[/QUOTE]
Of course, you have to gloss over reality to make your case. The beauty in nature is far more than random bright colors. However, I suppose that in the mind of an atheist beauty in reality doesn't exist.
[QUOTE]How much evidence you have presented so far makes the grand sum of zero, not a singe experiment nor a single proposed idea on how to begin an experiment – actions speak louder than words springer![/QUOTE]
I have presented evidence, you've simply denied that it exists. Most of the most eminent scientists in history believed in God, yet you have the nerve to say that there is zero evidence. Perhaps you should look inside yourself and ask what it is that you're not seeing, rather than conclude that because you don't see it, the evidence must not exist. While you're at it, you need to look hard at the so-called "evidence" you've presented for abiogenesis. Unless you can suggest a remote possibility of a pathway to life that doesn't skip over things like how DNA formed, you don't have anything.