Origin of Translation

Possibility is all we need in order to posit it as a route for abiogenesis to occur naturally. Of course we would then continue research into chemical interactions and environments and may one day even discover definite possible pathways, rather than theoretical possible pathways.The difference lies wholly with the evidence. We have many complex chemicals, we have many complex environments, and we have a definite sign that life exists. Thus chemicals and environments interacted in some way to form life.Natural routes require only what we have seen so far and so is logically the best explanation for abiogenesis (and then speciation).ID routes require something else altogether. That requires an intelligence which we have never encountered, nor have evidence of, unless we are to circularly accept life as the sign that an ID existed to make life.The amazing complexity of life or chemical interactions does not add towards evidence that an ID existed, as the complexity may have more to do with our current lack of knowledge than what is actually there.Given all of this there is an obvious gap between the credibility or probability of natural abiogenesis, and artifical abiogenesis.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhhhh... I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say we know what complex chemicals and environments existed which created life.What I was saying is that on the earth we know there are complex chemicals (not talking as complex as biological organisms) and environments.I assume you are not claiming that it is only theoretical that there were diverse complex chemicals and environments deep in earth's past? If so, then we are dealing with some other discussion entirely.The point then, is something in that mix of chemicals and environments happened, out of which life formed. Either it was a natural route using the existing materials, or according to ID, an intelligent agent (previous to the existence of earth environment or not) played with the elements such that they would form life.Given that "intelligent agent" is an added "element" for which we have absolutely no evidence besides someone asserting it, and it would require a whole additional set of explanations, this is less credible and less probable.And yes probable is the correct word. If you follow any ID accounts it is almost always posed as the correct answer after probabilities are calculated for the formation of biochemicals. Yet they never discuss that on top of this, in order to hold their own theory, there must be the same calculations for the IDer.It would be the height of inconsistency to say that it is somehow immune to evidence and calculation of probability.Why do you keep saying ambiogenesis, instead of abiogenesis?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This would be completely wrong. ID contains logical fallacies incompatible with good philosophy. That is why Dembski has actually come up with a new "fallacy" which is just an assertion that the argument from ignorance is not a fallacy.As soon as you have someone having to reject "occam's razor" and "the fallacy of the argument from ignorance" as valid and necessary to proper philosophy, they are clearly rejecting philosophy.ID is theology.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I always thought it was governed by the law of gravity, it keeps falling down.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That's right. We don't walk into a place where we know things are made, spot objects we can identify from experience as having been made, or look similar to objects that have been made, see things we know from experience help "people" (who we know from experience are capable of making things) make things, and then suggest that the best explanation is that the objects which look made happened to fall together through chemical interactions.But what we can do is look at the earth, where there are a bunch of chemicals (which we know interact in many complex ways all by their lonesome), and a variety of complex environments (which facilitate a variety of complex chemical reactions all on their lonesome), note that we have no evidence of any beings capable of manufacturing anything in the deep past, note that we have no indication that there were any tools for manufacture in the deep past, note that at one time in the deep past there was no biochemical life and then there was, note that evidence suggests life began in simple biochemical form and progressively became more complex, note that evidence suggests that life began in a single environment and moved to different environments, note that evidence indicates that they reproduced (which we have full experience of today), and that we have full evidence both changing environments and reproduction result in changes over time to a population, and then state that the best explanation fitting all of this evidence is abiogenesis, followed by evolution.Now it is true that for us to say this explanation is exactly what happened and we damn well know it 100%... that would be working on pure faith. Future evidence may change what is indicated as the best explanation.However at this time, to say that any other option, particularly one that involves an ID, is equal to or better as an explanation is not just faith, it is fraud.Only a person that is uncomfortable with facts can assert there is some equality of "faith" required by both theories. One is the best explanation we have, given the available evidence: that is abiogenesis, followed by evolution.If you want to have faith that more evidence will come in later, that's fine. Just don't pretend it has before it has.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-19-2004 05:04 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)