Oh those clever evolutionists: Question-begging abiogenesis

I can't seem to cut and paste smileys so I won't be able to quote your riveting retort.Honestly percy, what's the point of having rules and then flouting them? Would you accept this behavior from creos?

---

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

I'm sorry, but special creation sets the question back REGARDLESS of entity. Let's say we definitively prove that abiogenesis cannot occur under any conditions anywhere, and that initial lifeforms must have been manufactured.That does not get us to who, how, or why. And miracles would just be handwaving. What mechanisms were used would have to be investigated.If we find out it was some powerful intelligent force outside of our time and space, it could be powerful extradimensional beings or Gods, the next relevant question will still be what came BEFORE THEM. How did THEY come to exist. An answer that as Gods or noncorporeal beings there was no other thing before them, is not automatically true nor acceptable.And I should add that if it IS considered good enough for God, then it could be true for extradimensional entities/aliens as well.Other than that, I agree that we are faced with the possibility of life naturally occuring or being created intentionally... heheheh, or a mix of both. Given that there is no evidence for intentional creation outside of myths in books written by humans, with each creation story of one faith rejected by the other, its a bit odd to suggest that intentional creation has any reason to be believed, other than a nice feeling such a thought may provide.On the other hand there are lots of complex chemical reactions which have the potential to become the precursors for life, and then life, and carbon compounds are found throughout space. So that latter option (natural), while having no direct evidence, does have some plausible mechanisms and has as yet no contrary evidence.I don't know which one is true, but I do know which one is the most supportable from a scientific standard as a theory.I assume you agree with this analysis?

---

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

Point out one line that was question begging.1) Is it true that there are many creation stories and each group denies the creation stories of the others, including all entities within them?2) If so, what am I to use to choose between them?3) Is it not true that we have molecules and chemical reactions, and we as of yet have no way of knowing all the chemical reactions which are possible, and that all bodies are made up of chemicals engaged in chemical reactions?

---

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

From a personal perspective there is no real reason to prefer one to the other, because there is such a dearth of info, besides an acknowledgment of where there is no potentially contrary evidence and no added entities required.From a scientific perspective I though I made the point that there is. Special creation is unable to be considered a reasonable scientific theory at this time. It is possible that at some future point we get something which may start pointing in that direction. However, as of right now there is only contrary scientific evidence to postulate that.Again I ask, do you agree?

---

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

The line you quoted was not from the post where you said I was begging the question. Please admit you are being disengenuous.As it stands, the quote is not question begging. I am beginning to wonder now if you even know what that term means. You seemed to have it pegged right in the paraphrase, but you clearly miss the mark here.You may not have liked what terms I used, but they were correct.The only evidence we have for special creation (lets say "the prime requirements for special creation") are found within religious texts. There are many different ones and all religious groups dispute the authenticity of the other groups' books. Is this true or not?As far as abiogenesis goes the prime requirements for that theory are observable and are not in dispute (chemicals and chemical interactions). That is also true is it not? You do agree we have chemicals and reactions right?In both cases we do not have any idea of the exact mechanism, thus they both fail on that account. But abio at least has all its required (posited) elements established. The other does not. Is this not true? I made two arguments in that area. The point was either it is pushed back for all or pushed back for none. Generally for science it is pushed back for all, since we are curious buggers. But if you want to be a true believer, that's fine, only then logically speaking the line does not get set back for aliens either.

---

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