Come now, Rick you don't imagine Steve has proof to back up evolution-in-the-gaps. He knows there is no test. You'd think that would be troublesome for a man of science. But this this is not really science, is it. Sort of science fiction.

Still, he is entitled to his opinion. If we accept his assumptions there is a high probability he is correct. Fortunately, we have seen through the assumptions and now those assumptions are correctly being questioned. Now the probability seems more like .000001% that he is right.

I don't have a problem if he has faith in the somehow method, just don't put it in my son's classroom and tell us it's a fact when it is another lie.

"The only true account of the origin of life on earth is found in the account of the only Eyewitness who was there. The Bible explains that the presence of life on earth is the result of supernatural actions of an omnipotent Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible. Many complain that accepting this supernatural explanation stops anyone from pursuing knowledge about the natural world, but the presence of a logical Creator provides a reason to look for order in the universe. This point is underscored by the fact that many of the major fields of science were founded by men who believed in the Creator God of the Bible. The only aspect of science that the acceptance of creation excludes is the story of evolution."

And what do you have to offer other than "god did it"? Take a long careful look in the mirror and ask yourself if you really are being intellectually honest and not swayed by your own primitive programmed biases. Revealed knowledge, spiritual feelings, incredulity, beauty, love, or other emotions are not evidence of design or the supernatural. They are fictions of your stone-age brain (and I don't mean this in a derogatory sense).
I certainly know what science is and is not. I am fully aware of the effect of basic assumptions, observer bias, and sampling errors. I have spent years in the lab "experimenting", writing, researching, defending my research, and teaching. I fully understand the insidious nature of bias on research and human emotion/cognition. I also know what it is like to be raised with the belief in the supernatural and what religious programming is capable of doing to the human psyche. If "god did it" had any evidence or even logical foundation, I would have no problem "believing". Then, of course, it would no longer require "faith".
Science, on the other hand, is certainly capable of encouraging dogma and even academic dishonesty. However, it is self-correcting. This is what makes science such a more powerful tool in explaining the world than religion. Scientific dogma can be overturned, religious dogma only becomes more entrenched. Every example of a religious explanation of the world that has been measured by science has failed its test yet there is no sign that this has had any impact on dogma.

So you are saying you don't plan on doing the experiment? Really, it sounds like a piece of cake to hear you talk about it...heck you could do it in your garage probably.

Really? You have that little of an understanding of what real research requires? Gee, I thought you were someone that had "real world" science experience. I must have misread your posts. That explains your obvious bias and lack of insight.

Once upon a time, the Smiths moved into their new home on Mulberry Street. Within a week of living there, a baseball appeared in the back yard. The Smiths declared that the old statue of Colonel Adams in the town square must have come to life and delivered the baseball when nobody was looking. It happened again a few days later. The statue is alive! It's supernatural! There can be no other explanation!!

Then there was a knock on the door and the neighbor boys asked if they could enter the back yard, as they had accidentally hit a few baseballs over the fence this past week. It happened a few days later. A baseball appeared, then there was a knock on the door. The neighbor boys again.

The next month, a football appeared in the back yard. Is it the supernatural? Did the statue come to life and deliver the football? Or are the neighbor kids playing a different sport? Such a mystery! We'll never know!! Logic doesn't favor one over the other! Nobody can prove it wasn't the statue!

Oh so now you are backing off of your statement. What, is it too complicated for you? Not according to the link you posted earlier or the statements you have made since. When it comes to put up or shut up you seem to be wanting.

The bottom line is that you have grossly overstated the voracity of the science that supports your position. If abiogenesis were as much a slam dunk as you say, then someone would have easily done the experiments and proven it. I almost fell over laughing at the link you gave that suggested that self replicators would spontaneously form in 10 years. What a ridiculous statement. Science has been trying to do this for at least the last 50 years without success yet, it should be "easily" accomplished in 10. I think that link went even further to suggest that they could have formed in one year!

A professor of mine once told me that "No one argues about whether today is Tuesday." The point of that statement is that if something is widely accepted as fact then people have no cause to investigate it, study it or argue about it. If the case for abiogenesis as the source of life were a massive as you claim, then people wouldn't be studying it or debating it any longer.

As a self professed man of science I am disappointed that you would take such liberties with the evidence. Talk about bias coloring your perception...

Rearden you make my point for me. I really think you guys are not comprehending my position here.

I believe in a creator. This is completely separate from my study of science. I separate them because whether or not a creator exists is not scientifically provable.

If you want to walk into the discussion and say "I don't believe in a creator" then fine. I have no issue with that. If, however, you want to walk in and say "There is no creator because science has not proven one"....well then I would say that is a very unscientific thing to say.

Again, it's an issue of sampling error. If I look at one person who is white and conclude that there are no black people in the world, well that would be incorrect. To look at the miniscule amount of evidence that we have about our universe and conclude that there cannot be a creator makes the same mistake.

It will be studied and honed and debated forever. Mankind has only been seriously considering it since the Enlightenment. Before that, people attributed it to magic. Some still do.

Many would say that the current theory of abiogenesis (i.e. life from nothing, possibly due to a lightning strike on a particular pool of mud) amounts to attributing it to "magic".

A few centuries ago, everybody on the planet would have considered a television set with remote control to be magic. But of course it isn't.

And of course if someone centuries ago would have said that the science of the day proved that a television with a remote control would someday exist, his position would be no more defensible than yours.

I do not pretend to use science to explain my belief in a creator, I simply am pointing out that science does not support your belief in the absence of one either. In a few centuries maybe we can meet and see who is right...

LOL, who is implying that abiogenesis is a working theory? You are simply throwing up another straw man argument. The statement was that there is no current suggestion that a "god" is necessary to explain the origin of life. "God" is not necessary to explain the diversification of life for the last 3.5+ billion years, so why do we need to invoke the "god of gaps" for abiogenesis if we have the fundamental building blocks in hand? So far, god has not appeared anywhere in this universe that we have examined. How many "god of gaps" arguments have been interred by science? What is the score? 10^9 to 0? It only takes one point for "god" to win, looks like he is going to be a late scorer.
Remember, science started life as a means to find god and document his glory. By that standard, science is an abject failure.

Time for a little satire. What constitutes proof of intelligent design?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1209786990.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1209787015.jpg

And of course this should sit well with frogger, stuartj, and Kurt.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1209787033.jpg

What constitutes a valid signiture from god?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1209787174.jpg

So it seems that sjf is now backing off his defense of abiogenesis. I still am not sure exactly what your position on the origin of life is then, as a scientist of course. Since we both agree that evolution does not address the origin of life while ID does, they shouldn't be in conflict.

So, are we back to "something happened but it sure wasn't God"? If so, do we REALLY have to rehash that again?

What amazes me about this thread is the total lack of understanding of science shown by almost all. Science only tells HOW things work, never WHY things work or why things are here to begin with, those subjects are NOT science. What we have is a bunch of so called scientists who do not even know what Science IS to begin with.

Science is based on observation. One cannot observe where we came from or why we are here, that simple. Consequently where we came from is NOT science, since it cannot be observed. Evolution can be observed, but it cannot show where life originated. Evolution can be a science, the origin of life cannot.

ID does not depend on religion in any way. ID is an observation by people with enough perception to know what can occur by chance and what cannot. The lack of many to see the necessity of ID only show their weakness, their lack of ability, nothing more.

Some people recognize the necessity of ID and try to incorporate it into their religion, they may be mistaken, they may be right, who knows, but the main religions, eg Catholics beleive in evolution, so the atheist trying to spoil religion have no point to make there. They argue against ID like it is a religion, it is not so they have no point, they also have no argument to show that ID is not a credible idea that must be considered.

And finally, yes, some of us are gifted. We have the ability to know things that some do not. We know that there must have been a creator. THose of us that cannot see this are simply lacking in the intelligence required to know such things.

They're not.

The theory of evolution is the product of scientific research.

The intelligent design concept is the product of faith based belief.

Faith (I'm certain) plays no part in scientific research, nor (I'm certain) should it.

Science plays no part in religious faith (I think, in most if not all cases), nor (I tend to think) should it.

The theory of evolution belongs in science laboratories and science classrooms.

The concept of intelligent design belongs in places of worship and religious classrooms...or, wherever.

It would be as wrong-minded for scientists to demand that the theory of evolution be taught in religion classes as it is wrong-minded for believers in intelligent design to demand that their belief system be taught in science classes.

If I'm missing something that fundamentally refutes any of the above statements, I'll wager that it will be a fundamentalist (or other), using no scientific basis, who will attempt to explain what that something is and attempt to justify teaching intelligent design in science classrooms, and not a scientist, using no faith based basis, demanding that evolution be taught in religious classrooms.

Sir, you are simply wrong.

ID describes the origin of life like string theory defines the universe. If it is correct, you have to figure out which of the 10^500 iterations is "the one". I vote for Hopi version.
Unfortunately for you, that still leaves natural abiogenesis with more supporting evidence and stronger case, despite the 10^500 possible creation myths/chances.

Who's wrong? What's wrong?