Science has not ‘discovered’ parallel universes! Nor has it any evidence that such things even exist. As far as I’m aware such things are ‘mathematical thought experiments’. But as you brought it up, the existence of such things would still need some physical influence in our universe before it could be detected, yes? Therefore parallel universes remain as unprovable, pending evidence. (lets not get side tracked with this.)

Did I say someone from the past giving interviews? No I did not! I said, something like the second coming of Jesus could be investigated by science because such an event manifests itself in the natural world. There is nothing ridiculous about that scenario?




My point was to show how science is cautious about it’s statements, and is not overreaching what is actually being observed and measured.
I.e. you can’t claim there are no pyramids on Mars unless you look. But you can claim there are no pyramids on Mars provided the reasons for the assumptions are made clear and that the reasoning is derived from inferences about what is currently known. The difference between the two statements is one of ‘degrees of certainty’, i.e. the first might be considered as 99% definitive, and the second might be only 80%, with the percentages changing as more is understood.

Both statements are consistent with being science, and reflect the state of technology/knowledge available.

I suppose one of the things that gets misunderstood is that there is a presumption of science having to be correct. This is not strictly true as there is latitude for science needing only to be ‘internally consistent’ (if you get my meaning) so that a group of observations can be tied together. The positive electron flow explanation of electricity comes to mind, works beautifully, still does (mostly) , but its wrong!




No that’s not true at all. There are observations and evidence for various aspects of life and the universe. Some of these explanations however may include degrees of uncertainty. In other words, science provides “the best explanation” sure it may “actually be wrong”, but more science is need to overturn the current explanation. That’s does not make the explanations fairytales, far from it, because if you examine any of the arguments in detail, I will wager you will find the assumptions, data and reasoning. By comparison a fairytale need not have any of those scientific qualities.




? deadlock this is contradictory statement.




Correct, that is how science works.





You don’t have to exclude God by default, lets see if this approach will work for you:
a. First you must correctly state that science cannot investigate immaterial things (how can it?). Do you agree?
b. You don’t want to jump to any conclusions or any default positions as this can lead us down a false path. Do you agree?
c. To avoid point ‘b’ we must not give God a default position of being the cause when science has no immediate answer, else how will we be able to sort out what God is responsible for and what nature is responsible for? do you agree?

If you use this approach you should come up with 2 possible scientific positions.

1. Science has tentative explanation X for observation Y.
2. Science has no explanation for observation Y.

BUT position 1 might include God as the cause, However it will have to pass scientific scrutiny, ok, no free ride.

What do you think deadlock, will this work for you?

Are not these 'mathematical thought experiments' science ? We are discussing what is science and what is not. Although parallel universes remain as unprovable, pending evidence, their studies is considered science.



You didn´t say it but it´s the same case.You believe Nero existed but you never saw him giving an interview.



I´m not discussing if there are pyramids on mars. I´m saying that if we find pyramids on mars we would conclude that some intelligent being has built it.



There are many scientific theories that are based on imagination and until they are proved they are like fairytales. How did Einstein discover that time is not constant ? Did he see any evidence ? No, he imagined and many years later the experiment that proved it was done.



No, it´s not. Because I have this position in a specific case, "When no natural explanation exists".



What is immaterial thing ? Is Energy an immaterial thing ? Is Gravity an immaterial thing ? Is Space an immaterial thing ? And is Time an immaterial thing ?



To do this we need to know that the default position is wrong and that´s not the case.



To have a position does not mean we are closed to new evidences.We can conclude God did something today and tomorrow change our position based on new evidences.What´s the problem ?

You think that God is beyond the realm of scientific investigation. Therefore, abiogenesis is the only other choice.



Yes, that is the essence of the "evidence". Thus, you really have no evidence, only wishful thinking.


By "material proof", you mean a "proof" that fits within the paradigm of materialism.



That is the precise logic that you are using. You're saying nothing less than, "We know God doesn't exist. Therefore, abiogenesis must have occurred."
Chance, how can we have an intelligent debate on abiogenesis when you have the predetermined assumption that God does not exist?



No, conforming what you want to investigate.

Material evidence is the best kind of evidence. Whats wrong with the shroud of turin? Or Jesus' burial cave, or even the hill at calvary?

Even if an angel came down and whispered proof in your ear, would you know you were holy enough not to be decieved like Eve was in the garden?

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, but the strongest evidence is faith. The atheist, secular humanist and naturalist cannot see such evidence and, in fact, resists it.

Right now abiogenesis rests on a "I believe science will figure it out" position. Not facts. As a kid, I remember watching science programs telling me that a meteor was found that carried amino acids, "the building blocks of life." All that was needed was some water and a suitable atmosphere. No one has scientific evidence of the presumed early atmosphere and other conditions of the early Earth, much less actual evidence of how the first cell formed.

Clearly, what is being promoted here is a question I heard 30 years ago, "Show me God. If you can show me God (physically), I might believe in him."

My brothers and sisters in Christ, nothing has changed except the internet, through forums like this one, is being used as an advertising vehicle for evolution.
The same people come back and 'seem to' argue for their position, when, in fact, all they are saying is: "Show me God. You can't show me God? Then I'll show you science." God is above all science. All the interpretations of the evidence demonstrates is a series of reasons to not believe. But even those reasons are flawed.

Polystrate fossil trees, rapid coal and oil formation, the impossibility of a cell acquiring new genetic information, the Galapagos finches' beaks changing in size due to local environmental conditions, not evolution, depictions of dinosaurs by human hands in relatively recent objects.

The other thing being "sold" here is doubt. A series of questions and a series of arbitrary labels, OEC, YEC, Theistic Evolution, etc, to confuse the issue. All things were created by God and nothing was created without Him. And the greatest truth, that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life is outside of the thinking of non-Christians. My message to them is, while you're waiting for science to provide evidence for God, you may die, and if you die without accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you risk spiritual and physical death at the Judgement at the end of the world.

Finally, I really wonder about how many Christians believe in Evolution.
Here is what Pope Benedict of the one billion plus Catholic Church has to say about it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10007382/



God bless everyone,
Al

Many would disagree, from the wiki

My own opinion is that it’s interesting as an academic exercise, if any ‘hard’ science will come if it it’s too early to tell. I think multiverses will languish on the fringes of “is it science”?



No it not, the existence of Nero and why I believe he existed was dealt with earlier beginning with post # 28, and # 31 Nero (or any roman emperor, for that matter) is supported by material evidence in the form of statues, coins, and the correlation of historical events with multiple textual sources, from unbiased sources. (and by unbiased I mean things like mundane documents of an administrative nature where a conspiracy to fabricate an emperor would be a ludicrous position to take)

The thrust of my second statement re the second coming was to show such an event could be investigated by science, specifically because of it’s material nature.




Provided they were obviously constructed by non natural means (e.g. made of bricks or stone). The reason we can conclude such is that we know a lot about Geology and human construction, we have good knowledge on how to discriminate between the two.




Oh please …… now your just making stuff up, Einstein’s theory of relativity solves the dilemma that the speed of light when measured, is the same in every direction and is totally independent from how the observer or the light source is moving.





Ok I was a bit hasty there.




I would class all of them as material. Something immaterial would behave as if it were not under the influence of the items you mentioned.




But as a general principle do you agree? You can make your case regarding a default position separately. Lets get some ground rules first.




Agreed there is no problem whatsoever, provided the current explanation is scientifically sound and based on evidence. No free ride, ok.

Please review the questions a, b, c, again but this time only as a principle to follow, the specifics of any given scenario must be dealt with later. What I’m trying to do is find out if the method will work for you in any scientific endeavour.

Yes, my opinion in full is reproduced below, it relates to the question that science has no reason to suspect abiogenesis is correct.



Question for you, do you thing God is beyond scientific investigation?




Please justify why you consider the points b, to f, cannot be classified as evidence? Or do you actually mean that you are not convinced that these evidences support evolution/abiogenesis?




Absolutely, what else can science investigate?




No we don’t ‘know’ God does not exists. (have you ever seen a theory disproving God!). If God can be investigated I will happily include such in any further scientific endeavours, but I just cant find a way to test for God without defaulting to the false premise of (If Not, ‘X’ Then, ‘Y’).

Enough of my problems, you come up with an answer and we shall see if the method is scientifically sound, else I’m inclined to think you presume Gods existence separately from scientific principles.

All you have are indirect evidences, and why do you think a coin is a valid indirect evidence of Nero ? Because there is no natural explanation for the existence of a coin.If we discover a natural phenomenon that could produce coins of Nero then coins of Nero would not be evidences of Nero anymore.Is the same case of DNA, we have no evidence that DNA can be built by any natural process.All DNA that exists was built by copying a pre-existing DNA.But the first DNA ? I think you agree with me that a intelligent being with enough knowledge can built a DNA using aminoacids and it is a question of time that human being can be capable of this too.So the evidence we have is intelligent beings can built DNA using aminoacids.Have we evidences that any natural process can built DNA using basic chemicals ? No we have not. Therefore the right position we can have now is life was created.



But velocity is a relationship between time and space. Why didn´t he shorten the space ? And if this was so obvious why did they do experiments to prove he was right ?



But science says that in a black hole time is eternal.Before the big bang there were not time and space.

What? I’m not sure what point you are attempting to make here. The evidence is what it is, there is some subjectivity, and on the basis of the available evidence, a judgement is made that Nero is not fictional.

The thing about natural methods of producing coins, seems a bit bizarre, but yes that would disqualify using coins as evidence I suppose. Where are you going with this?



(my paragraphing)

Re-a. DNA duplicates itself via mitosis, that is a natural action! (where there was one, there is now two). Raw chemicals from the surrounding environment are used.

Re-b. True for the situation right now. But can you know for certain that it has always been so? If we use current abiogenesis models it is postulated that DNA is not the origin first form of life, (it being far to complex to have formed by chance). You need intermediate forms of ‘life’ to get from goo to replicating chemical, and a whole lot more to a single cell and DNA.

Re-c. DNA is not all there is you need a fully functioning cell (a chemical factory). But yes I suppose an intelligent being could build life. But the problem you face is one of regression, Intelligent being must have also come from somewhere and if we are assuming a naturalistic cause, ID falls flat on it’s face, because sooner or later you will need to face the reality and acknowledge that complexity just can’t ‘poof’ into existence,(if you believe it can then you will need to provide evidence to support it) it needs to evolve from something simpler and you need to explain how the original intelligent being originated. Essentially you are trying to postpone the question instead of answering it.

Re-d. evidence? what evidence? so fare you are building a proposition based on certain assumptions that certain things might be possible.

Re-e. Yes we do have evidence that DNA is formed from raw chemicals via natural means, so you cannot claim creation is a default position.

You have argument is incorrect 4 out of 5




Are you being serious here? You can measure distance and keep it a constant for the experiment.

Experiments are a way to confirm. A theory must withstand the harshest criticism, a scientist must expect other to ‘bust’ the theory. No respectable scientists expects others to take him at his word, any theory must be repeatable, it’s all part of a rigorous process. In addition you will find that other experiments were testing for some of the predictions that relativity infers (like time dilation).




I would ask you to expand upon what you mean here, after your ‘relativity’ question above I’m not inclined to second guess it (and a link might be in order this time, plus an explanation of relevance).

Evidence is not a property of any thing.Evidence is a classification.So, why are coins an evidence ? Because there is no known natural process which can produce a coin.In the same way DNA is an evidence because there is no known natural process which can produce a DNA from basic chemicals.



So, a computer virus duplicates itself, Is this a natural process ?



Ok, now we are entering the Speculation World.



The original intelligent being is pure energy and lives out of time.He had no beginning.



As I said DNA is an evidence.



Please show them.



Short distances, but and long distances ? And Science has proved that gravity can bend the space for example.Many scientists think that time and space is two aspects of the same thing.But the relevant point is that the relativity of time was a logical speculation and not a direct observation of time expanding.



In reality the Einstein´s theory was not the only solution proposed for the constancy of the velocity of light.

Hmmm classification, I suppose so. Coins are evidence because they are classified as such, because there mechanism of production is known. Mitosis produces DNA.




First, do you agree that DNA is produced by natural processes or are you invoking some sort of miracle that powers mitosis?

I don’t see any supernatural processes involved in computer virus, do you?




So if I say “perhaps” its speculation, but when you say “it can’t have happened” that’s not speculation! Come on!




Is this speculation?




But your assumptions are invalid as your whole premise is dependant upon If Not, X then Y, it collapses. Go back to the method I proposed, see if you can fit your assumption into that frame work, then you might have some scientific starting point, else all you are doing is philosophising.




Mitosis. (long topic) From the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitosis. Like I said earlier, are you proposing that DNA is created supernaturally or do you accept that mitosis is a purley natural phenomena!


(my paragraphing)

Re-a please explain?
Re-b Your confusing general relativity with special relativity.
Re-c relevant point ??? But it’s repeatable, testable, verifiable, it’s 100% science, it falls out from a physical observation that current ‘theories’ could not explain (e.g. "aether").




???

How does

Again you are confusing special and general relativity. Look… seriously…. deadlock, I beg you, you are doing yourself no favours perusing this line of enquiry. I suggest we drop Einstein’s theories now.

If you can see a, relativity (special or general) conflict to YEC positions I would be happy to discuss them in a separate topic.

Oh God helps me ! Then in your opinion was the first DNA built by mitosis ?



Who said does it exist supernatural processes in computer virus ?



Proof of no existence is a fallacy. How can I prove that abiogenesis didn´t happen ? You have the onus of proof.All tries to prove abiogenesis failed until now, The most right position that I can take is it didn´t happen.



So what did it exist before the big bang ?



But abiogenesis is philosophising too !



But what has mitosis to do with the first DNA ? A computer virus can duplicate itself but the first one how can it appear ?



I think you have a difficulty with abstract thought. I´m not discussing if Einstein was right or wrong, I´m using him to show how theories are built and evidences are used. Einstein didn´t need to see time dilation to formulate his theory, he had indirect evidences that he used to make a conclusion which could be wrong.So it was necessary to test them.We have indirect evidence that life was created, this evidence is DNA, because we didn´t find any natural explanation for its origin.

You already know my (and science) position I have explained it before. But No, you just don’t get the “first DNA” (nor a cell), the exact abiogenesis process is not known. You are mistakenly trying to create a ‘chicken and egg’ scenario, and it’s not appropriate to evolution (or chemical evolution re abiogenesis).




By supernatural I am of course inferring non natural.




Are you dizzy yet, because your going around in a circles! You falling into your own logical fallacy trap, by claiming “it didn’t happen” (when you ask how can I prove?) you must know by what mechanism it did not happen by, since non has been seriously proposed you have no basis on which to make that claim, your back to the false If Not X, then Y again.

Abiogenesis has good reason (all previously listed) why it is considered the way things happened, the reasoning points to it (and there is circumstantial evidence, previous listed) and no default position is needed (other than the axiom that science investigates naturalism).




That is not an answer! is it speculation or not?




Up to a point. The reason science is now investigating mechanisms is because the philosophising has gone about as far as you can take it. if you take another look at post #31 I listed the reasoning, thus: (reposted for ease of reading)

Science should have reason to suspect abiogenesis is the culprit, because by definition science must have naturalistic explanation, and the possible candidates are limited to:

a. created - non naturalistic, but since there is no proposed method of distinguishing between created or evolved, it a dead end.
b. planted - this doesn’t provide fruitful either because even if life was planted by aliens the origin of that extraterrestrial life must ultimately be reduced to either created or abiogenesis on it own world.
c. abiogenesis – is all that remains
d. have I missed any?

NOTE the point d. This is where I hopped discussion would provide input, because if you can think of another scenario, that might lead to a valid position against abiogenesis.




You claimed that DNA could not be created naturally

I don’t see any reference to ‘first’! To avoid the false argument (chicken/egg) being equated to abiogenesis, I took your question very literally (deliberately so). The reason should now be clear. As you can create DNA naturally (mitosis) abiogenesis becomes a pathway that leads to DNA, and it can all be done naturally, gradually, chicken/egg avoided!


(my bold)

Lets examine this indirect evidence then, hear is mine:

Re- Abiogenesis: I have previously listed in two stages, the logic (points a, b and c in this post) and the physical evidence (circumstantial) #49.

(Reposted for clarity)

a. An Occam's razor type logic, where all other mechanism are eliminated (as I previously explained in post # 31.
b. A second type of logical observation, where the fossil evidence peters out the further back in time one goes, where the only type of life being found is simple.
c. Plenty of time for abiogenesis, (a huge percentage of earths history)
d. Chemicals required for life are found naturally.
e. More complex chemicals required for life can be created e.g. Miller-Urey experiment.
f. Replicating molecules can be created.

Now it’s your turn to make a list, lets see if the logic and evidence stacks up, and can become science.

[quote]
You already know my (and science) position I have explained it before. But No, you just don’t get the “first DNA” (nor a cell), the exact abiogenesis process is not known. You are mistakenly trying to create a ‘chicken and egg’ scenario, and it’s not appropriate to evolution (or chemical evolution re abiogenesis).
[/quote]

Your position is a position of faith, nobody proved abiogenesis is possible and the process of abiogenesis is unknown, but you assume abiogenesis happened anyway only because you are atheist and God is out of question.

[quote]
Are you dizzy yet, because your going around in a circles! You falling into your own logical fallacy trap, by claiming “it didn’t happen” (when you ask how can I prove?) you must know by what mechanism it did not happen by, since non has been seriously proposed you have no basis on which to make that claim, your back to the false If Not X, then Y again.
[/quote]

It is Absurd !!!:o From now on elves exist because nobody proved they doesn´t

[quote]
Abiogenesis has good reason (all previously listed) why it is considered the way things happened, the reasoning points to it (and there is circumstantial evidence, previous listed) and no default position is needed (other than the axiom that science investigates naturalism).
[/quote]

Until now you show me nothing proving abiogenesis.

[quote]
That is not an answer! is it speculation or not?
[/quote]

It´s a logical conclusion. Give me an alternative.

[quote]
a. created - non naturalistic, but since there is no proposed method of distinguishing between created or evolved, it a dead end.
[/quote]

You are wrong , everything that can´t be explained by natural processes is created.This way we know pyramids was created, coins was created and etc...

[quote]
b. planted - this doesn’t provide fruitful either because even if life was planted by aliens the origin of that extraterrestrial life must ultimately be reduced to either created or abiogenesis on it own world.
[/quote]

It´s a fallacy because we are discussing the origins of life on earth where we have evidences to study.Anything about the origin of life on other planets is speculation because we don´t know the conditions on those planets. There´s no problem for science to accept an eternal life without beginning.This quality is proposed to the universe by the atheists to escape from the necessity of a creator.

[quote]
c. abiogenesis – is all that remains
[/quote]

How can the study of abiogenesis on earth can explain abiogenesis on another planet ? The fact is abiogenesis is impossible on earth. I don´t know if it´s possible on another planet.And there´s no problem for the first life has been created by a being with no beginning.

[quote]
I don’t see any reference to ‘first’! To avoid the false argument (chicken/egg) being equated to abiogenesis, I took your question very literally (deliberately so).
[/quote]

I think this deserves no answer

[quote]
The reason should now be clear. As you can create DNA naturally (mitosis)
[/quote]

No , DNA is copied by a mitosis.What´s the difference between paint a picture and copy a picture ?

[quote]
abiogenesis becomes a pathway that leads to DNA, and it can all be done naturally, gradually, chicken/egg avoided!
[/quote]

[quote]
a. An Occam's razor type logic, where all other mechanism are eliminated (as I previously explained in post # 31.
[/quote]

Completely flawed

[quote]
b. A second type of logical observation, where the fossil evidence peters out the further back in time one goes, where the only type of life being found is simple.
[/quote]

Completely out of focus.

[quote]
d. Chemicals required for life are found naturally.
[/quote]

Water is required for life and is found naturally and then does it prove abiogenesis is possible ? Please I know you can do better.

[quote]
e. More complex chemicals required for life can be created e.g. Miller-Urey experiment.
[/quote]

It is interesting your insistence to use the word "created".But the Miller-Urey experiment was completely flawed and everybody knows that , I thought that evolutionists had given up to use it.

[quote]
f. Replicating molecules can be created.
[/quote]

The word "Created" again. First all replicating molecules must be created in labs with special conditions.Second, they are all random , they have no information and they are simple pepitides with 30 aminoacids more or less.

"Science" does not support abiogenesis. If it does, show me the evidence...not conjectures involving made-up laws of chemistry and physics.




"Exact mechanism?" You don't have the slightest idea of how abiogenesis is possible.


You continue to dodge the issue. God is not "non natural".



You're saying that "Y" is impossible, therefore "X" must be true.



You keep saying this but have never produced a shred of evidence that it could have happened or did happen.



You've just contradicted yourself. You've excluded God as a possibility, thus seizing the default position.





You've missed the whole point. YOu're claiming victory by default.



You are again trying to maintain a default position. Unless someone can come up with a better idea, abiogenesis occurred.
You claimed that DNA could not be created naturally. You're falling prey to the "if not X then Y" argument.



You can't create DNA without pre-existing DNA, so what's your point?



Using Occam's logic, ID is proven valid by default. All mechanisms of abiogenesis have been eliminiated. If you can propose one that is within the realm of science, please do so. Otherwise, by your own logic, ID is the only other choice.

Reply Part 1

Well your quite wrong, the position is explained as one of logic and Occam’s razor.



A good point, because you see science would not attempt to prove such a thing because the lack of a starting point, i.e. there is no evidence for elves, there is however circumstantial evidence for abiogenesis.



This is the second time I have posted this list, and we are agreed that it does not prove abiogenesis, I have never claimed it does (nor does science) it is however evidence for it’s existence.



A logical conclusion? Please explain how you arrived at “pure energy”, “lives out of time”, and that “he had no beginning”. If you examine how you discounted other possibilities, you will have your alternatives, perhaps if you start with the full list, I will be able to see how you finaly ended up with the model you have toe the Intelligent designer, yes?

Reply Part 2

False logic based on current understandings – I have demonstrated this before with examples of science overturning supposedly ‘created’ explanations. Your own logic fails if pyramids and coins are found to have a naturalistic origin. The basic logical is erroneous, because you have not provided a method to distinguish how to tell the difference. This is why ID is not science, no method is proposed!

(my paragraphing)

Re-a. Discoveries so far have all shown that the universe is all made of the same basic elements, and all subject to the same basic forces, therefore speculation is rather limited to life that is made up from the same basic stuff. Proposing that life was seeded by aliens only puts the problem back to how did the aliens evolve, therefore until such aliens reveal their presence, it is beyond science to investigate or work up a falsifiable experiment, unless you can show us how to do it?

Re-b. What is your evidence to presume life is eternal without beginning? The Big bang theory has evidence that the universe did have a beginning, where conditions would be hostile to life. Accepting without evidence is not scienctific.

Re-c. this ‘quality’ I an observation, not speculation!

(my paragraphing)

Re.a it may it may not, it would depend on may things.
Re.b how can you be certain if that is a fact?
Re.c neither does anyone else.
Re.d. what sort of being? Is there any evidence for such a being? Is this philosophy or science?




Is this a serious question? In this context, the copy (of DNA) is made of the same chemical stuff, a picture (of DNA) is a representation of the original using different stuff. Mitosis occurs naturally, picture painting requires an intelligent input.

Reply part 3

Your opposition to my arguments is noted, can you however formulate a rebuttal against the points? If you can are you willing to share?



No it does not ‘prove’, but it is evidence for, and not against!



Then you are very much mistaken, perhaps you would like to explain what this “flawed aspect” is.

Re created. A canyon can be created by erosion. Life can be created by abiogenesis, but lest not turn this into the use of semantics.



Even if what you state is true, I have to ask “so what”, how is that still not evidence for abiogenesis? Basically if we have discovered one or more lines of investigation, does that not leave the door open to the possibility that there are more to be discovered, and possibly under different conditions? You statement about labs is a little ridiculous, how else could one investigate such matters if not conducted in a laboratory?

It is partly conjecture, partly circumstantial evidence, partly logic, non of which use made up laws of chemistry and physics. The ‘support’ as you put it, is in the forms of the evidence I have posted earlier.
Since you opened the door for this, could you please present these made-up laws of chemistry and physics you think we are using.





Please explain why you think that a problem?




By non-natural, I mean beyond the ability of science to investigate it. e.g. the parting of the Red Sea, or the feeding of the 5000 would not have ‘natural’ explanations. Such miracles are attributed to supernatural causation.




Re: If Not, X, Then, Y.
Science takes the ‘correct’ position of stating it is not possible to determine if Y is true or not. transpose the argument into the formula you get this:

If Not, ‘abiogenesis’, Then, ‘creation/ID’.

In other words science is of the opinion that just because abiogenesis is not proven, creation does not win by default, because so far there is no evidence to support a creation or ID position. If there is no theory, hypothesis, or proposed line of investigation for determining ID, how can it possibly be take seriously and be used as a scientific default position? There has to be some starting point for ID, something that allows testing, if it cant stand alone, it doesn’t even get a start.




I have posted them earlier, all previously listed. Look it’s no good saying I haven’t posted my position when it is plain to everyone that I have. If you don’t like the specific point I have put up as evidence then I suggest you argue against those, and not make blanket statements that I have not posted the evidence, else you will turn this discussion into a Monty Python sketch “yes I did” “No you didn’t”.




If I were to include God, what scientific evidence would I use that can stand on it’s own merits and not be itself subject to: If, Not, ‘X’, Then ‘Y’? This is the point I have been attempting to make, all scientific positions require evidence and I have listed mine, sure you don’t agree with them, or perhaps think they are not compelling, but they are evidence nevertheless. Non of the evidence relies on a default position, an the only judgement that can be made upon it is one of how compelling it is, which is fine, this is what science does, and is supposed to do.





Where exactly have I done that?

The position above is not proof of abiogenesis, it is the philosophic positioning that is used to begin scientific investigation, if you don’t think it valid reasoning I would ask you to show where the logic in error is, or alternative missed (point ‘d’). there is no victory, just a line of investigation to follow.
As an exercise, see if you can derive an ID equivalent, and we can test the logic of it.




On the contrary, what I am asking for is a line of evidence to follow (nothing to do with default positions). Abiogenesis has evidence, it will stand or fall on the evidence alone. If you are unable to come up with a line of evidence to support ID, where can the science go? (you’ve failed to even get a start). Do you think ID deserves a default position without evidence?





(my paragraphing)

Your refutations do not stack up:

Re A. You use the words proven badly, because proving one theory false does not validate an opposing theory, every theory must stand upon its own. It is quite conceivable to have two wrong theories is it not? So your point A fails on logic alone.

Re. B Have they indeed! Firstly there is no mechanism for abiogenesis proposed yet, it is a work in progress. The position is one of “there is evidence to support that a mechanism is possible”, and what you are seing now is part of the falsification process. So if science has not got around to or is even aware of, all the possible scenarios of abiogenesis, you can’t claim they have all been tested and eliminated, can you? So your point B fails on logic also.

Re.C I would propose any and all investigation into abiogenesis that are being undertake are being done so using the scientific method (how could they not be?, and if they were would soon be proven not to be by the first team who try to replicate any experiments). But most importantly you fail to grasp the hypocrisy of your position by claiming (paraphrased) that if I can’t propose a method for abiogenesis, (today), ID wins by default! Without you giving one shred of supporting evidence for your own POV!! WOW!!!



The scientific position must be one of evidence alone (no free ride for either side) I have given my position and evidence on more than one occasion, where is yours?

Chance:

You speak of abiogenesis as if it can stand on its own, yet you’ve admitted before that your belief in it rests heavily on your overall acceptance of NDT.

You ask for direct evidence of ID. I’ve given it. The evidence is the existence of life and the innumerable irreducible complexities thereof. You and I observe through everyday experience that complex things require intelligent input to create. Evos are accustomed to thinking that complex things can form by chance, but they have no direct evidence of its possibility. All they have is decades of rationalization, convincing themselves that their imagination fits the facts of nature. It is reasonable to conclude that single cell life required intelligent input because it is irreducibly complex. There is no continuum between life and non life, and no conceivable pathway where it could form without intelligent input. It is not reasonable and certainly not scientific to conclude that life could evolve on its own, because you have no evidence that it can. You say you’ve presented evidence. All you’ve given is wild speculation. None of what you’ve presented stands up to even the most loose scientific scrutiny. You ask me to elaborate on your “made up laws of physics and chemistry”. What I refer to is your imaginary scenario of life forming on its own through random molecular interactions. You imagine that there is some sort of preferential binding, allowing purposeful base pair arrangements resulting in a genetic code. You imagine that natural selection might have some filtering effect on pre-biotic forms, resulting in an onward and upward progression toward bacterial DNA. You imagine that complex proteins could form by chance give, billions of years, billions of liters of prebiotic soup, and billions of planets. Yet you don’t wish to actually subject your theory to hard probability calculations, because you know that regardless of how much time and how many cubic miles of prebiotic soup you imagine existed, there remains no possible way for such complexities to form on their own. It is beyond the reach of chance. A simple perusal of any textbook of probability 101 would convince any honest investigator. Furthermore, you imagine that undefined conditions existed billions of years ago which somehow allowed life to form, despite the fact that there is no evidence of life evolving today from inorganic matter. Thus, the only reason you haven’t arrived at the logical conclusion that intelligent input is required is because you refuse to accept the possibility of God for personal/religious reasons.

NDT would have much more credibility if it’s followers would honestly admit that there is no explanation as to how the first life could have formed. Rather than making up absurd stories that have no basis in fact, it’s more intelligent to simply state, “I have no idea”, even if it causes the general theory of NDT to come crashing down. A true scientist is callously indifferent to the political/philosophical consequences of his conclusions.

Another comment about the "if not X then Y" argument... According to you, regardless of how implausible evolution may be, it cannot be disproven. Why? Because you have dismissed ID as not being science and therefore not in the running. You think that abiogenesis can stand even if it is demonstrated to be impossible, because you will not admit any alternative involving ID under the excuse that itj's not "science". I hope you can see that this kind of thinking is irrational. Your only argument for dismissing ID is because, according to you, it does not fit into what man has defined as science. You say because the "supernatural" cannot be tested by the scientific method, that it must not exist and therefore is unthinkable in the discussion of the formation of life. The hypocrisy of this whole argument is that none of your proposals for abiogenesis can be tested... at least none of these proposals have been verified through testing. Even if a few mechanisms that you propose did prove to be valid, you certainly cannot extrapolate that into your conclusion that abiogenesis actually happened. Even if you could produce DNA in a test tube by mixing up organic molecules in a magnetic field, that would in no way prove that abioegenesis occureed 3.5 billion years ago. You have an unprovable theory which you pass off as science, despite the fact that you cannot even demonstrate that is remotely possible. All you can do is site experiments that show that amino acids can form on their own and certain proteins can self-replicate. To conclude that this provides any evidence of the possibility of abiogenesis is so absurd that I cannot put it into words. It is typical of evolutionary thinking.... demonstrate some miniscule change in nature and extrapolate that to goo-to-you evolution.

Chance, I don't wish to sound insulting. You are more intellectually honest that many evos out there. There are many who simply divorce themselves from the topic of abiogenesis, arguing that it has nothing to do with NDT. They make this artificial distinction because they have no explanation for the evolution of single cell life. They deceive themselves into thinking that NDT remains intact despite the enormous problems of single cell life forming from inorganic matter. The problem is, once they admit that ID was necessary to form the first life, there is no logical reason to suppose that ID would not be operational in the creation of all life.

Yes, (and coupled with ‘old earth’) that is an accurate. To clarify for the benefit of other readers, the reasoning goes somewhat like this:

There is life now, as you go back in time it gets simpler (were talking older than 545My here). Given the big bang, formation of solar system period is inhospitable to life, it therefore seems reasonable to ask if life can come from non life, via natural processes .... the rest of the argument you know.



No that is an observation of the here and now, it’s not evidence about how it came to be the way it is!
When pressed to explain how it came to be, you inevitably turn to the default position of “If not Abiogenesis, Then, Created”. What you need to do is propose a way for science to test your idea also. more on this below.




That’s our problem, ok! No matter how difficult abiogenesis may appear, that difficulty does not support your own position. Remember it is quite conceivable to be proposing two erroneous position, and falsifying one doesn’t make the other right, do yo agree?




If it reasonable, then tell us how it got to be the way it is? Explain the mechanism (proposed) explain how we can test it to sort out what is designed and what is ‘evolved’.



Again that is our problem, and those difficulties can’t be used to support your own, as I have previously argued.



Well I disagree, there is experimentation on such things but it is very early days. As for the probability aspect, the general consensus would be one of “it’s not possible to calculate at this point in time as the variables are not known”. Needless to say these are our problems that will need to be explained, I don’t think they are insurmountable. But again all these problems do not support creation.




What evidence would I use to begin an investigation? Ok lets take the hypothetical situation below:

OK, “Springer, you win I am now convinced that abiogenesis is irrevocably flawed”. Is that it? Do we now sit down with a satisfied smile on our face and proclaimed to have solved the meaning of life? Is it ID for certain? Can you not possibly contemplate the possibility that you may be wrong? But most importantly, how will you ever be certain if you do not try to prove (scientifically) your POV?



IMO the ‘honest’ position is that we don’t know the exact mechanism, but are pursuing lines of evidence. Several ideas of how abiogenesis may have begun are competing for prominence, in the hope that they will lead to a line of investigation. You claim that the current ‘stories’ have no basis in fact, well I would challenge that, I propose they are based on the best knowledge we currently have.



In this forum evolution is defined as “molecules to man”, NDT describes how existing life evolves, (we can take that as DNA driven evolution if yo like), I don’t see why an analogue of chemical based evolution (abiogenesis) is not possible as a precursor to NDT.

The big bang is based on a presupposed assumption of materialism and absence of a creator. The basis for your conclusions is one huge network of beliefs that all fit into a paradigm of evolution. These are not unbiased, irrefutable observations by any stretch of the imagination.



Chance, I’m getting weary of hearing this argument, because evolutionists are taking the default position all the time. Just listen to Dawkins sometime and how he constantly argues for evolution by insisting that perceived imperfections of nature argue against the existence of a creator and therefore is evidence to bolster NDT. “Whales don’t have gills… therefore they must have evolved, because a creator would have given them gills.” This line of reasoning is everywhere in textbooks of evolution, so please don’t deride creationsists for arguing that the failures of NDT argue in favor of ID.



In most cases I would agree, but not in this case. Abiogenesis includes all mechanisms that do not involve ID. Either ID is existent or non-existent. Your insistence that one cannot use the default position is clearly an attempt only to win the argument by default. What you’re trying to do is exclude ID from science and therefore from consideration. Once you’ve done that, the only possibility left is some form of abiogenesis from a materialism perspective.



Science does not require explanation of a mechanism. Do you know the mechanism of human consciousness or even what it is? Do you know the mechanism of how a human brain develops from a single zygote? I’m sure you don’t doubt that these things exist and are within the grasp of scientific investigation. Do you know the mechanism of abiogenesis? Of course you don’t… not even close. You say you’ve proposed a mechanism. So what? It’s nothing more than your imagination, because the mechanism is so vague and unverifiable, and so full of inexplicable holes. So, why do you consider abiogenesis within the scope of science? Your insistence that ID is not within the scope of science because its mechanism cannot be explained is clearly inconsistent with traditional scientific thinking. Since when is it required to explain a mechanism?



No attempt is made to calculate probability because the improbability is obviously too great. You can’t hide behind the “unknown variables” argument. That is merely a smokescreen which has been erected in the face of insurmountable odds against abiogenesis.



The “best knowledge we currently have” is nothing. Evolution has hit a brick wall when it comes to the formation of life from non-life.

Would you agree that it is reasonable to conclude that it is impossible for a man to fly without the aid of a machine? No one has ever done it, and no proposal has been made to even remotely suggest that such is possible. Can you prove it’s impossible for man to fly? Perhaps there’s a mechanism lurking out there that we haven’t yet discovered. According to your line of thinking, you will continue to look for a mechanism for abiogenesis because, in your mind, that is the only possible option out there. You’ve excluded ID and are left with nothing else. Even though you don’t have a mechanism, you cling on to the theory, regardless of how baseless it is. You pretend that there is active investigation, implying that science is getting close to unlocking the mysteries of life. Yet you must know that this is not even close to the truth.

"It takes no brains to be an atheist. Any stupid person can deny the existence of a supernatural power because man's physical senses cannot detect it. But there cannot be ignored the influence of conscience, the respect we feel for the Moral Law, the mystery of first life….or the marvelous order in which the universe moves about us on this earth. All these evidence the handiwork of the beneficent Deity... That Deity is the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ, His Son."
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

I believe I can defend my position with science, if you like start a topic, or post in an existing one, and we shall see.




Getting weary? Perhaps it is because you cannot refute the argument in it’s current form!

I mean who cares what Dawkins thinks, or his arguments re imperfect design, they have nothing to do with the question I gave, to your claim of:
springer> “The evidence is the existence of life and the innumerable irreducible complexities thereof”. and me replying
chance> No that is an observation of the here and now, it’s not evidence about how it came to be the way it is! When pressed to explain how it came to be, you inevitably turn to the default position of “If not Abiogenesis, Then, Created”.

Its not me taking the default position, it you!

So I request that you answer the question as it is phrased and if you like pose a separate question regarding claims of imperfect design an how it may or may not be evidence for either.