"Self organizing systems tend to occur in thermodynamic systems far from equilibrium. I believe that would be the smoking gun. We have a process, we have nothing which prevents it from happening, we have a history of life on the planet that narrows timewise the further back we go. It is quite reasonable to fill in the blanks."
--I still am not understanding what you mean fully. Though if I correctly interpret your comment; If you are commenting on Evolutionary developement as in common decent with modification of all known species than this isn't going to be answered with what you have given. Whether Evolution happens today is not the same inquiry as to whether it has happend through all Earth history on the scale the ToE presents.
The fossil evidence argues that they are one in the same, as does the DNA evidence. As for origins, we have a process converging down to a single point of simplicity, and we know chemical polymers have a penchant for self-organizing. Again, it is not difficult to fill in the blank.. especially since there is no evidence for any alternatives.
"Both the cosmic background radiation and the cosmic redshift are considered direct evidence of the Big Bang."
--This isn't direct evidence in the sence that it is evidence that only has been predicted by the event which the Big Bang explains.
The appearance of the background radiation has no other explanation. It is precisely the right temperature to be black body radiation which has undergone expansion for about 14-15 billion years. That is uncanny.
Likewise, the redshift is a direct evidence because redshifts imply movement, and the movement is away from eachother, therefore we can postulate that the galaxies were closer together in the past, and at a single point at a given time by calculating the rate of expansion.
These two bits of evidence also cross correlate with eachother. The black body radiation and the best estimates of the expansion match eachother. That is also uncanny, and is unlikely to be the result of coincidence.
--This doesn't mean that it has happend but is supportive that the interpretation the Big Bang gives is a likely explanation.
I think the evidence is quite explicit. Perhaps moreso than abiogenesis, though not as clear as the fossil record of evolution.l
"That doesn't make sense. Absence of evidence for a thing can never be evidence for a thing."
--I agree. Though that isn't what I tried to say. You made reference to a specific God that there may be evidence for. And I can't find a rock that says 'created by the Christian God' or anything of that nature.
"You're right.. there should be no evidence. But why then do we find evidence of "natural" processes? "
--I never said that the process of deposition(?) wasn't a natural process, just not your hypothesis on the topic.
"There is no way to authenticate these documents, or anything that they say."
--Not with absolute authenticity, but just as your cosmic background radiation suggest a single point of spacial origin, this would be suggestive of such.
I'm not saying it is impossible to authenticate any document. It is certainly possible to authentical many historical documents. However the Bible just doesn't happen to be among them. It refers to important historical events known to have occured, and locations known to have existed, yet the specifics of the Bible are very difficult to pin down.. especially the miraculous events.
"There is no difficulty in the initial cause of existence that does not remain a difficulty even with a "creator" included. If you can have an uncaused cause, the universe can be uncaused, and if you can't.."
--The universe did have a cause, a 13-14 Ga year old event (in theory of course. To say that it didn't is playing semantics.
No it is not. The universe did not necessarily have a cause. We can not know for sure whether it had a cause or not. Causality may not be a part of the structure of whatever it is that the universe is a part of.
As an example.. causality does not work the way we expect below a certain scale in quantum mechanics. Causality seems to be a property of large numbers of particles in our universe, and it doesn't seem to apply precisely to small numbers, or individual particles.
--And there is a difficulty to come about the existance of time-space without a creator.
None that doesn't exist with the creator as well.
"God can't be uncaused."
--Cause and effect wouldn't apply to a creation of God if he is infinite.
Nor do they apply to the universe if it is infinite. Nor do they apply to the universe if it is a quantum fluctuation, etc. etc. There is no problem or solution to causality that is unique to a Creator. All problems that an uncaused universe has, a creator has, and all solutions to these problems are equally valid without a creator in the equation.
"A fairy tale is light on the details, heavy on the moralism, and unworkable from a practical or scientific standpoint. I think the label is appropriate."
--Well then its analogous to saying that 'Evolution is a religion'. When in that statement, if Evolution is a religion, theres no problem with that, the statement is futile and doesn't bring it down from a scientific perspective. Synonymous is my scenario.
Conversely, a scientific theory is HEAVY on the details, has no moralism whatsoever, and tends to be highly practical and workable from a scientific and even engineering standpoint. Evolution is not a religion unless you want to water down the word 'religion' to mean practically anything that anyone believes whether it is science or not.
"Sorry about the nature of the post. This is simply John Paul's nonsense written from a different point of view."
--Don't confuse me with John Paul and I won't confuse you with arrogance.
Go ahead and confuse me with whatever you'd like. I don't mind.
™ Version 4.2