Which is exactly how much evidence there is for abiogenesis as a source of spontaneous life. So what's the difference?

Besides, I believe you asked the question. If you don't want the answer, don't ask.

The difference is that not every competing theory has an equal probability of being true.

I'm not personally advocating abiogenesis (I don't know how life began). My viewpoint is simply that the actual answer doesn't have to take the form of either "it's abiogenesis or if that's not correct, then god must have done it". To me, "god did it" and "some natural explanation that we haven't figured out yet" don't have equal probability of being true. That's my bias, though.

Damn, you're biased, Mike. ;)

No one said that it's either abiogenesis or "God did it". I'm sure there are other ideas out there, feel free to bring them.

The point is that thus far science's only inkling as to the origins of life is abiogenesis. Thus, if you choose to keep a position of "I don't know", then you shouldn't denigrate someone else who is trying to put an idea out there. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and shoot others down.

While I agree with you, the idea you're putting out there (a supernatural explanation) is untestable and has no supporting evidence so how does that further our search for the answer?

If you strongly believe that a creator is responsible for the origin of life on this planet, what is the evidence for that? If you have no evidence, why do you believe it to be true?

he he he. So, some of you guys feel a little threatened?

You've had a good run for 150 years, too bad it's over for you.;)

What are you talking about? :confused:

End of Days! ;)

Actually, there is a lot of evidence for abiogenesis as a source for spontaneous life. I guess you didn’t do the research I asked you to do. Why is that? Are you afraid you might learn something that will contradict your faith in creationism?

"Debating creationists is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all of the pieces, ***** all over the board and fly to their flock to brag about their newest triumph." Pienipaha

Heh, Kang if nothing else you are a master of the condescending tone...

If you believe there is research out there that shows abiogenesis as a source of life, you might want to redo your research.

Thus far scientists have seen certain compounds being synthesized in nature, deep ocean sulfur vents and whatnot, they have even been able to get amino acids to assemble into simple proteins with electrical currents.

What science has not ever been able to do is show that life comes from non-life. Even in the "deep time" theories of abiogenesis, there must have been a point in time where life began. Except for perhaps prions, we have no evidence for quasi-life, something that isn't alive but isn't dead either. Even taking freshly dead, fully assembled beings we cannot recreate life. Once science can show creation of life from non-life then abiogenesis will be a plausible theory. Until then, ID and abiogenesis are equivalent; both unprovable theories of the origins of life.

I don't get it Rick. You mentioned a few things that scientists have accomplished/observed/found evidence for. Great. And you rigtly note any shortcomings. Fine. Then you go on to state that ID and abiogenesis are equivalent. I must've missed the part where you showed what ID has accomplished/observed/found evidence for. Why the free pass for "the answer is magic (aka god)?"

The problem with abiogenesis is that the central event (i.e. the creation of life) has never been observed or even postulated at. Just because certain compounds come together in a sulfur vent does not lend any credence to the idea that those compounds somehow became alive. It's akin to someone observing a piece of dirt and saying that the dirt made a house. Yes a house is made of compounds found in dirt, but the leap is simply unfathomable. That's why I equate ID and abiogenesis. Neither one can prove that their theory of how life began is plausible.

I never said there was research for showing abiogenesis as a source of life; I said there was evidence for that. Jim understood this and addressed it well. There are many elements of abiogenisis that science as “accomplished/observed/found evidence for.” You even list a few. There are zero elements of ID that have been “accomplished/observed/found evidence for. How again are the ideas equal?

For Rick, a house is a house only when the furniture is finally moved in. ;)

No, it's not at all akin to someone observing a piece of dirt and saying that the dirt made a house. That is a logical fallacy by way of weak analogy.

I hear that both Logical Fallacy and Weak Analogy are playing Coachella this year...

So, you're simply using the term "ID" to mean "magic" at this point? We don't know, so ID is just as good as anything else?

To me, ID implies some sort of creator, but there is no evidence that this supernatural being exists (or none has been presented). It seems odd to hang your hat on (or to even assign equivalent weight to) a theory for which there is no evidence for the driving force behind the theory. Again, you might as well invoke the FSM.

Not posutlated? Where have you been?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1208980911.gif


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Which

Ticketmaster?