Ok then correct me. Tell me what science knows about how life began.

LOL, I think you need to work on your semantics then, because that is not how it reads in this context.

You miss the point. You are the one posing the absolute (that God has NEVER done anything in the universe). It is up to the one posing the absolute to prove it. Again, my point is that there are innumerable concepts and events that science cannot explain. I'm not saying that "God did it" is the answer, but once again you are putting yourself on a limb that says "Well, I have no clue why that happened but I KNOW it isn't because of X".

See, that's not a supportable position. If someone wants to come in here and tell me that life was created by the FSM, I am not in a position to tell them they are wrong because we have no evidence as to how life was created. The only scientifically honest answer is "I don't know". Period. Saying "I don't know but it sure wasn't God" doesn't hold any water.

In short, if you say that life wasn't set in motion by a creator then tell me how life WAS set in motion. If you don't know then simply say so.

Maybe you need some more evolution, I don't know. That statement is pretty clear, especially if you take it in the context that I have been saying all along that evolution does not address the origins of life...quote is below...from page 8 by the way (as in posted 10 days ago):

What do we know that is absolute? Does all "knowledge" have the same value? Is every opinion of equal merit?
I think this is what lies at the heart of the current debate. You seem to be saying that since science doesn't have "proof" of abiogenesis, "god did it" is of equal consideration.
We are saying any evidence carries more weight than no evidence.
"God did it" has no evidence, no logical underpinning, and no historical success in predicting natural processes.
"Evolution" has an enormous body of evidence in multiple scientific fields.
"Abiogenesis" has a limited body of research that supports it.
So, God/ID did it is no better than the FSM, fairies, teapots, etc. It is a hypothesis but lacks evidence, predictions, and testability.
Abiogenesis on the other hand, at least has some evidence and makes testable predictions. Therefore:

Evolution>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Abiogenesis>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>God did it(ID).
These "ideas" are not of equal merit. That is what we are saying.

Well, you’re going to have to do some homework. I don’t think it is appropriate for me to spoon feed the information to you. Here’s a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenisis

Start by reading that, and then follow the references and external links at the bottom of the page. Follow that up with a Google search on abiogensis.

To preempt a question that I know is coming: Yes, there are several competing ideas. That is part of the process of gaining complex knowledge like this. Like I said above, we are somewhere between having 0% knowledge and 100% knowledge. As we know more, some of these competing ideas will be thrown out the window, some will be modified, some will coalesce together and some will remain. It’s the way science works.

Mike never said “god has NEVER done anything in the universe.” You’re putting words in his mouth. Asking him to prove that god has never done anything in the universe is kind of like proving a negative. You’ll never know that maybe god did something on some remote planet in some remote galaxy someplace, so you can never prove this.

What IROC is asking for is the opposite. He’s asking for just one example of something god HAS done in the universe. We’ve been looking for this example since the dawn of humans, and we have yet to find it. While he can’t prove that god never did anything on some remote planet in some remote galaxy, you can’t even come up with one example of something god HAS done.

Scientists don’t actually say “I don't know but it sure wasn't god.” Again, you’re putting words in their mouths. The might say “I don’t know, but god has never, ever been the explanation before, so I seriously doubt god is the explanation now.” That’s closer to the truth. See the difference?

Kang, get over yourself. I understand fully the theory of abiogenesis and the limited research that has been done in the area. I don't need you to spoon feed me anything, especially wikipedia.

My challenge still stands. Tell me what exactly has been proven in abiogenesis and how that proof leads you to conclude that abiogenesis is a reasonable and logical explanation for the origin of life.

I think you will be surprised at what you find if you look at the evidence fully (which I'm sure you won't since your preconceived notion is set in stone...hey, you've read wikipedia!!!)

Yes he did:

Again, you are using a false argument to support your position. Look through science. We perhaps understand 10% (probably more like 1%) of what goes on in the universe. Heck there are still areas of our own PLANET that we know nothing about. We know very little about how our own brain works, etc, etc, etc. Given all these mysteries, if you only understand 10% how can you ever say that there is no supernatural or other explanation (aliens or whatever) for the other 90% of what you don't know? It's a problem of the n in the issue. The n on your experience is so low that you can't make any conclusion because your sample size is so small.

What you are doing is akin to me saying "Well there are no dogs on my street therefore there are no dogs anywhere. I have never seen one so it can't exist. My experience tells me so." Well, walk 2 blocks over and whoops, there's a dog.

That's what amazes me, if you truly look at science and understand the vastness of what we don't understand, how can you be so cavalier as to discount the rest of what we do not understand and may not understand for thousands of years? I know you say "Well, we've looked at 10% of things and it hasn't happened yet." I say that is a scientifically pathetic argument. I'm not saying that you have to believe in a creator, you can believe or not believe in whatever you want. What I am saying is to stand up and say that in your scientific opinion there is no creator is bogus because there is no true scientist who would make that assertion. The evidence is not there to form an opinion either way.

Oh, and I didn't mean to implicate all scientists in that statement, that was worded poorly. A true scientist who looked at this issue MUST conclude "I don't know." I was addressing the quasi-scientists on this thread.

Your challenge? Exactly what was that, now? You claimed “science knows ZERO about how life began.” I was simply trying to show you that we know more than ZERO about how life began. It was a simple thing: science only needed one piece of information about abiogenesis to know more than zero.

If you take what we do know about abiogenesis, and the knowledge that “god did it” has never, ever been the explanation for anything, then I conclude that abiogenesis, while still incomplete, is currently the best reasonable and logical explanation for the origin of life. It is far more likely that the incomplete theory of abiogenesis will eventually become complete than it is that the explanation will eventually become “god did it.”

Kang in order for anything about abiogenesis to apply to the origins of life you would have to presuppose that abiogenesis WAS in fact the source of life. Science cannot prove anything of the sort and thus whether or not we can observe a chemical reaction in a thermal vent has NO BEARING on answering a question on the origin of life.

I stand by my statement that science knows ZERO about how life began.

Back on topic, here is an interview with Stein about the movie if anyone is interested:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4609561480192587449

No, Mike never said ““god has NEVER done anything in the universe.” Like you quoted, he said “a supernatural explanation has never been the correct answer." That's different. What he (and I) say is more like “it’s never been shown that god has ever done anything in the universe.” That’s different than saying god has never done anything.

Your dogs on the street is a bad analogy. It’s a logical fallacy by weak analogy. Studying the universe is not at all like walking two streets over.

It would be nearly impossible for someone to say “god has never done anything in the universe” both for the reasons you state and the reason I stated above (perhaps he did something on some remote planet in some remote galaxy 5 billion years ago). Again, that’s like trying to prove a negative. But if god really were this being that mainstream Christians talk about, someone who meddles in our day to day affairs, someone who flooded the globe, answers prayers, made the earth in seven days, etc, etc, I find it very interesting that the number of proven examples of “god did it” is zero.

The claim that science knows ZERO about abiogenesis is refuted with one tiny piece of information that science does know. The claim that “god did it” has NEVER been shown to be the correct answer could be refuted with one tiny instance of god actually doing something.

Kang I agree, my analogy of the dog is poor. It shouldn't be that there are no dogs on my street therefore there are no dogs in the world...it should be more like there are no dogs at my feet, therefore there are no dogs in the world even though I have never moved from this spot. You are attempting to make a conclusion that there is no evidence for the existence of God based on looking at .000001% of the evidence available.

I do agree with you that it is impossible for someone to say God has never done anything in the universe. That's the whole point. Yet, that is exactly what you are saying when you say there is no way that there was an intelligent designer.

And again, I think you are not understanding my point about abiogenesis. You say that because a scientist theorizes that life came from nothing and that because science has seen a chemical reaction occur in a thermal vent this is evidence for the origin of life. Again, that only applies if abiogenesis is IN FACT the origin of life. I could say that life sprang from my a$$ and I know this because bacteria come out of my a$$ therefore all life came out of my a$$. That wouldn't make any sense would it? Neither does your argument.

Why does there have to be an intelligent designer? Could it be that all we see is just the natural order of things in every solar system, in every galaxy, in every part of the universe. Natural order does not imply that ID is at work. It merely implies that's the way it is, has been and forever will be.

LOL, I would consider 10% an excellent statistical sampling to evaluate an all intrusive obnoxious god of Abraham. Come on, we make life and death decisions all the time based on data derived from sample sizes of <0.0001%. Absolutely no sign of god in 10%, pretty good statistical support for no god.

Only page 40? That's outrageous!

And only Steve and Kang spreading the improbable evolution in the gaps ideas? tsk..tsk..tsk

Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!
Question Darwinism!

Let's see, we have an excellent, well supported natural explanation for the diversity of life back to say 3.5 billion years ago supported by an enormously diverse body of evidence. There also happens to be no contradictory evidence and no sign of an alternative explanation.
Now, we know that the pre-biotic earth was rich in organics, including many of the common molecules of life. We have plenty of potential energy sources around that could drive abiogenesis, many different geochemical environments, and examples of spontaneous polymer formation as well as geochemical and auto-catalytic systems.
Various estimates suggest that the earth became "habitable" at about 4 billion years ago giving an abiogenesis process about 500 million years.
There is absolutely no evidence that any of these processes have ever been tampered with by an external source (ID). So of the 4 billion years of possible life on eart, we have accounted for 88% of it as an entirely natural process. Why would we need to consider a supernatural agent?

Hey sjf you seem to have all the answers...you have it all laid out nicely.

Why don't you just design an experiment and prove it? You posted a link previously in the thread that said you could easily form self replicators in 10-20 years. I'm sure that is within your lifespan and given that you seem to be very confident in the scientific data supporting your claim it should be a snap.

Heck you'd even get a Nobel prize for it.

Be my guest.

How the hell this thread got so long I don't know; I guess it is just a bunch of confused zealots who are insecure about their religion.

[they should be...]

"Intelligent design" and "creationism" aren't science. They are fairy tales!

-It's funny to listen to zealots debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I always want to ask them how many Disney characters can join those angels. Since bible characters are exactly the same as Disney characters [that is...imaginary], then the answer is the same.

OH no! Zealots go into all KINDS of recriminations and obtuse abuses of logic in order to try to demonstrate to me how jesus and god are different from Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. In the end they cannot give one SHRED of evidence to show me how the former are more important or have more validity than the later.

=======

It's all a moot point anyway. This November, we are going to elect a Democratic MAJORITY to Congress. We are also going to elect a Democratic President. Then...during this President's first term, most of the justices of the Supreme Court will resign. Most are progressives like me, and the new Progressive Congress and President will nominate and confirm Progressive justices to replace them. YOUNG progressives. And that will effectively prevent fundamentalist christians from trying to establish a christian theocracy in the SECULAR United States of America.

Then we can start taxing religious organizations.....

N!