The only thing that hasn't been found yet is the fossil that falsifies the theory. The theory makes predictions about what we should see and the fossil record helps to fill in those "gaps" (to use your term) with physical evidence to help validate the theory. Does the theory need some tweaking on occasion due to findings? Sure. Does the theory fall apart as a result of findings? It hasn't yet.

I think there is a huge difference between making an assumption and then finding bits and pieces of evidence that support your assumption versus claiming that because you haven't found all of the evidence , the theory is crap.

There's no physical evidence for ID (or creationism) and no evidence for even your kindler, gentler form of ID. It seems that would cause you more concern than a few missing pieces of evidence in what is otherwise a very well supported theory.

I'm not saying that the theory of evolution is crap. I am saying that the evidence to support evolution as the origin of life on earth isn't there.

Evolution as a way for existing species to develop is a well supported theory. Evolution as a way for new species to arise, not so much. Evolution as a way for complex multicellular organisms to have arisen from an inert, lifeless soup of amino acids...not even close.

Of course, no one is arguing this. The origins of life are not known and the theory of evolution is silent on the matter.

Moses - in this very thread - has talked about evidences of speciation through evolutionary change. Examples of it even in laboratory conditions are plentiful. What do you mean by "not so much"?

This is not evolution!! You know this! Why are you beating this dead horse? No one is arguing this point.

Now I am really confused. Are we talking about Abiogenesis, Evolution, or the evolutionary origin of the "Cambrian Explosion"?

A net is more holes than string, however, it does not follow that you can argue against its existence, just ask the fish.

The lack of fossils is more than made up for in the genetic record (except for very deep evolutionary time do to saturation). However, many more fossils await our discovery as long as we can remain an open and free society that does not suppress the search for knowledge and truth. Also, we have a long way to go in genome sequencing and comparative genomics with the rest of the animal, plant, fungus, bacterial, and Archaea species.
Will we ever be able to solve the Abiogenesis "gap", or even the Big Bang "gap"? Probably, if we can maintain a technologically advanced and open society long enough.

But you are arguing this point. You have been arguing with sniper for 20 pages about whether a bird could have evolved from a reptile. Again, I pointed this out probably 10 pages ago, evolutionists argue that evolution is a plausible explanation for life on earth until you actually break it down and then they say "well evolution doesn't address that". If evolution doesn't address the origin of life, then why are you debating the origins of life using evolution?

If the answer is "well, I don't know how life began but I KNOW it isn't ID!!", well that's a pretty weak argument. Basically you are arguing that your belief is better than someone else's belief. Now I know you will say that there is no evidence for a creator, I would respond to that that the absence of evidence does not disprove anything. They couldn't prove OJ killed Nicole either...

You're making things up, now. I have never tried to argue that evolution addresses the origins of life. Who is debating the origins of life using evolution? I missed that post.

I'm arguing that a naturalistic explanation is more logical than a supernatural explanation because in the history of mankind, a supernatural explanation has never been the correct answer. Not only is your "god did it" explanation wildly improbable (since "god did it" has never been the answer), you don't even have any evidence that your "creator" even exists! It seems you need to jump that hurdle first before you can use him as the answer for the origins of life.

ID is attacking Darwinian evolution. The movement (as are you) is using abiogenesis as a straw-man argument. There is no overreaching "Theory of Abiogenesis" so there is no "institution of science" to attack.
There is no fossil or chemical trace of abiogenesis that I am aware of and there may never be, due to crustal recycling and chemical weathering. The only individuals here that are talking about abiogenesis are the ID proponents.
Why do you continue to flail around with abiogenesis if we are talking about ID in conflict with evolutionary theory? No one has a clear understanding of abiogenesis. However, there is incontrovertible proof that Darwinian evolution is responsible for the diversity of life since the last common universal ancestor. How we got from a pre-biotic earth to LUCA is an unknown. You are more than welcome to insert your invisible buddy in the sky if you like as the original "seed" of life, that cannot be disproven just like panspermia cannot.
Evolution on the other hand clearly implies that there is no need for a "designer" since the LUCA. Logic then dictates that there is a much greater likelihood that abiogenesis occurred due to natural mechanisms than supernatural.

Wait a sec, sjf, you were just defending abiogenesis and posting all sorts of bibliographies 5 pages ago...now you are abandoning that?

If you guys can't stick to your argument I'm not sure how I am supposed to debate you. You post all sorts of links about abiogenesis and tell me to read up on a noted author on the topic and now you say I am trying to use abiogenesis as a straw man...if it's a straw man then don't defend it.

To IROC, you say "because God did it has never been the answer". How do you know? Are you saying that science can explain every event in history and that there are no mysteries left? Just in this thread we are talking about the origins of life which science has no explanation for. Is your argument that you don't know how it happened but you know God didn't do it? On what do you base that assumption besides the fact that you choose to not believe in God? How does that make you any different from me? I choose to believe in God, you do not. You say there is no evidence for God, I say I see evidence around me all the time of God's existence. You say science hasn't found an instance that says "God did it", I say wait for a while...maybe they will.

As a scientist, the honest scientific answer to where did life begin is "I don't know." Postulating about whether God exists or not should not factor into the equation.

Lastly, you say ID is attacking Darwin. First, again I am not a proponent of the ID community as it is currently led so I am not going to defend their actions. From what I understand, though is that they are not looking to stop evolution from being taught in schools, they are simply asking that evolution not be presented as a means for the origin of life and that ID be taught as well. I don't happen to agree with the second part of that, but I certainly agree that kids in school should be taught solid science, not postulation on how life began when the evidence is not there to support that idea.

People have been saying ”god did it” ever since they could talk and had a concept of god. Eons ago, god caused the sun to rise and the rain to fall. Now days, there is precious little left for believers to claim “god did it.” There’s a pattern here: for everything that we have explained, and I mean 100% of our scientific knowledge, “god did it” is not the answer. That phrase, “god did it,” accounts for precisely 0% of our knowledge. Sure, people still make that claim, but that’s just the old “god of the gaps” argument. Believers have been attributing god to the gaps in our knowledge for eons, and whenever a gap is filled, god is never the answer. Never, not once in human history, has the explanation been “god did it.” You say wait a while, well, we’ve been waiting since the dawn of human history, and it’s never happened.

As for the honest scientific answer for how life began being “I don’t know,” you are correct. To expand on that a bit, though, the real answer is “we know quite a bit about how life began, but we don’t currently have all the pieces in a complete chain of events.”

On the other hand, you claim to “see evidence around you all the time of god’s existence.” What you are talking about here is subjective opinion. It is your opinion that what you see is evidence of god’s existence. You choose to interpret what you see as proof of god, but it is really just opinion. It’s doesn’t really meet the definition of “evidence.”

Of course it doesn't meet the criteria of evidence, that's my point precisely. The scientists have just as much evidence for any other theory of how life began as I do..which is zero.

My point here is that when it comes down to the origins of life, evolutionists come after ID proponents and religious people for having their silly "beliefs". When you boil it down, that's all the evolutionists have when it comes to their theories of how life began...a belief that they are correct. It's the same thing between athiests and religious people. One group believes in God, one group believes there is no God. Neither can prove their case. There is no difference, yet one always ridicules the other for their silly "beliefs".

And the answer is not "we know quite a bit about how life began"...science knows ZERO about how life began. Science can make observations about evolution and extrapolate that back...but then we are back to abiogenesis and I certainly wouldn't want to bring up that "straw man" again...

Abiogenesis and evolution are separate problems/sciences. Nowhere have I seen Darwinian evolution argued as an explanation for the origin of life.
Evolution explains the diversity of life since the Last Universal Common Ancestor. Evolutionary Theory does not account for life prior to LUCA.
All of the attempts to insert ID in the schools have been to contrast Darwinian evolution using abiogenesis only as a straw-man. This is not and never has been an argument about abiogenesis. This is about getting biblical creationism taught as an alternative to evolution. If you don't believe that then I suggest you read Judge Jones' findings from the Dover trial. Better yet, read the entire trial transcript. It clearly shows ID for what it is and isn't. It is not science. It does not deserve to be taught alongside science. It is, however, an obviously poorly concealed attempt to get around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

From the trial decision:

"The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter “IDM”) and the
development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students
on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background
against which the Dover School Board acted in adopting the challenged ID Policy.
As a reasonable observer, whether adult or child, would be aware of this social
context in which the ID Policy arose, and such context will help to reveal the
meaning of Defendants’ actions, it is necessary to trace the history of the IDM.
It is essential to our analysis that we now provide a more expansive account
of the extensive and complicated federal jurisprudential legal landscape
concerning opposition to teaching evolution, and its historical origins.
As noted, such opposition grew out of a religious tradition,
Christian Fundamentalism that began as part of evangelical
Protestantism’s response to, among other things,
Charles Darwin’s exposition of the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation
for the diversity of species. McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1258; see also, e.g., Edwards, 482
U.S. at 590-92. Subsequently, as the United States Supreme Court explained in
Epperson, in an “upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor of the twenties,” 393
U.S. at 98 (citations omitted), state legislatures were pushed by religiously
motivated groups to adopt laws prohibiting public schools from teaching evolution.
McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1259; see Scopes, 289 S.W. 363 (1927). Between the
1920's and early 1960's, anti-evolutionary sentiment based upon a religious social
movement resulted in formal legal sanctions to remove evolution from the
classroom. McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1259 (discussing a subtle but pervasive
influence that resulted from anti-evolutionary sentiment concerning teaching
biology in public schools)."

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Unfortunately, origin of life and origin of life's diversity are frequently confused. Scientifically origin of life is abiogenesis, while origin of diversity is evolution. The uneducated will frequently confuse the two and the dishonest will take advantage of it.

I'm not sure you answered the question. Obviously evolution and abiogenesis are different, I believe I stated that about 10 pages ago.

So are you defending abiogenesis or not? I'm confused.

You continue to confuse abiogenesis with evolution.
There is evidence to support a natural process of abiogenesis, you just choose to ignore it. There is a growing body of literature in geochemistry and astrobiology on these very subjects. While these represent only small pieces of the puzzle, they certainly are consistent with natural abiogenesis. This, however, has nothing to do with the ID-evolution debate.
ID has yet to produce one testable scientific hypothesis or provide one piece of supporting scientific evidence. It remains a negative argument ("god of gaps"), only and remains tied to its religious origins. As such, it is not science and should not be taught in science class. You are more than welcome to teach it in a comparative religion class.

Here is your quote from a few posts back:

"I'm not saying that the theory of evolution is crap. I am saying that the evidence to support evolution as the origin of life on earth isn't there."

You seem very confused in this post since none of us are talking about evolution in the context of the origin of life.
So lets define what we are talking about:

1.Evolution= the origin of diversity of species since the LUCA

2.Abiogenesis= origin of life from non-life pre-LUCA

Let me summarize again. No one is presenting evolution as an explanation of life from non-life (abiogenesis, #2).
ID, as currently promulgated, is attacking evolution (#1) in the classroom.

Keep up the good fight, Steve. Maybe they'll at least realize that Darwinian evolution does not address the origin of life (I thought everybody knew that already... ).

That would be noticeable progress.

For the third, or maybe fourth time, I am NOT HERE TO DEFEND THE ACTIONS OF THE ID COMMUNITY. If you have a beef with the people who are trying to push ID into the classrooms take it up with them.

Second, I believe it is you who are confusing evolution and abiogenesis. Since I am the one that pointed out the difference and why evolution and ID should not even be in the same conversation about 10 pages ago I am surprised you are still confused. You say there is a growing body of evidence...I disagree. There are studies that show you can reduce sulfur molecules in thermal vents in the ocean. How you link that basic event to the idea that life sprung from non-life is beyond me. Talk about a God of the gaps...that isn't a gap, it's a chasm.

Do I need to repost the quote from your post again?

"I'm not saying that the theory of evolution is crap. I am saying that the evidence to support evolution as the origin of life on earth isn't there." post 762

You are linking evolution with the origin of life in this statement. If that is not what you meant then I suggest you correct it. No one that I can recall who is arguing for evolution on this thread has linked evolution and the origin of life, while to the contrary, you have.

How do you come to the conclusion that “science knows ZERO about how life began?” That’s not a correct statement at all. All science would need is one little piece of information and they’d know more than zero. It wouldn’t take much to pass that barrier. They’re actually quite a bit beyond zero knowledge. What I want to know is why you think we have zero knowledge on this.

Remember, for something as complex as the origin of life, you don’t go from zero knowledge to 100% knowledge with one discovery or one experiment or one article. Knowledge for something complex like this takes years and years to develop. Some of what you know gets tossed out the window, some gets modified, and some stays intact, but it is a long process. We are somewhere in the middle of this process, more than 0% and less than 100%.

By the same token, you are not correct when you say “that's all the evolutionists have when it comes to their theories of how life began...a belief that they are correct.” They have far more than just beliefs, while believers in ID (or god) really do have nothing but their beliefs.

OK, I'll play your silly game. :) What phenomena exists where the only rational explanation is that some supernatural force (I won't even say "god") is generally accepted as the cause? Just name one.

Man has used "god did it" for centuries. Unfortunately for those men, we always got smarter and, lo and behold, god didn't do it. There was always some naturalistic explanation. Always. Unless you know of something I don't.

Even if you admit that we don't know, but that you feel that your creator is ultimately responsible, what does that do to further our search for the truth? Are you (or other ID proponents) testing your hypothesis or using some other rationale to get to the bottom of this? Or do you simply stop investigating because - after all - you already know the answer?

Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem? The quote from me says exactly the same thing you said, i.e. that evolution does not and cannot address the origin of life unless you extrapolate it to abiogenesis, which there is no evidence to support. What part of that don't you understand?