I think you're still missing what detectability means. Wherever abiogenesis takes place, whether here or elsewhere in the universe, whether now or billions of years in the past or future, it is still thought to be a physical and chemical process that is eminently detectable. Whenever and wherever it occurs, if there's someone there then they'll be able to monitor the process.
Just have to drop in here. So what? Science cannot as of today detect it, right?
God is potentially detectable as well, but somehow despite the fact we cannot detect abiogenesis, and it seems pretty far-fetched since it's adovocates mostly advocate it occurring just once here on earth and it really is a form of sponteneous generation and counters everything we know about biology, somehow evos can go as far as to claim IT IS A FACT....lol.
But God isn't?
At least with God, we have some subjective evidence in the form of people's reports and indirect, objective evidence via the creation. With abiogenesis, we have nothing......and yet it is a FACT!
Oh yeah, that other guy, discoverer of the double helix and author of the timeless book by the same name, good old Nobel Prize winning what's-his-name.
Civility? I waa aware to a degree of his accomplishments.....just couldn't think of the name for a sec, and yes I saw the smiley.
Whoa, that's pretty funny, pretending to be offended by someone poking fun at you for being forgetful. I'm sure glad you're joking, because otherwise it would mean the next stage in the illness would be hearing voices inside your head.
Oh, and really the thing that they only were talking of a personal God is a stretch. If that was the case, why not say that?
Uh, they did say that. Watson said, "If it`s a personal god who interferes with our lives and listens to our prayers and aware of our existence, I really -- I can only mention one person that I know who believes that, who`s a serious scientist." See you're own excerpt at Message 32.
So what Wilson and Watson were saying was that they believe that Darwinian evolution makes it impossible to believe in a personal God.
Which just shows that it's possible to make an advance in a field of science without having a clue about what science actually is, it's significance, nor what reasonable logic is either. I suppose this is the result of the specialized nature of science, but it's still quite pathetic and delusional on their part.
First ban the critic of evos, and then post a lengthy post to which the poster cannot reply, and is not notified of, on a thread where the evo critic is banned from responding to (see admin's lengthy bs post on the buzz thread in coffee house).