Evolution is not Abiogenesis

There are times for seminars where discussion is free, but there is also a place for the lecture and tutorial where the student listens and takes notes.

But it can be. It is a great place for those who actually do know to lecture and the rest of us simply read and learn.

Only when evidence of that Intelligent Agent's existence and the testable model of how that Intelligent Agent influenced events is presented and tested.Bring in the Intelligent Agent for testing and the model/method that agent used and that idea could be considered.BUT...there is evidence, overwhelming evidence, of natural causes, natural processes. So far no one has ever presented any evidence of non-natural or supernatural causes or processes.Until such evidence is presented the Intelligent Agent idea is an irrelevant fantasy.

You need to understand "Special Creation".Mankind is a Special Creation, not evolved.There are other specific kinds, for example the Dove and the Raven are different kinds.The idea of any one single creation event for all animals or plants is anathema.Each "kind" is a special creation, unrelated to all other created kinds.

They react the way they do because both evolution and abiogenesis are not Special Creation.

A very good first step. As you progress though and find that Creationism is simply not supportable, please remember that that does not mean you have to abandon Christianity, only that you throw away a very false and worthless product marketed as Christianity Lite.

What double standard? What you quoted is simply a fact, the truth, an example of honesty.Note that the quote starts with the term "Until" and then lists the requirements that ID will need to satisfy before being considered as an explanation.There is no double standard there at all.There is no put down.ID, like the Creationism it really is, has simply NEVER presented evidence or any model/method other than "insert miracle here".

I'm sorry but what is clear is that what you posted and I quoted above is not true, but false.I will try once again to explain it to you. If you do not understand some of the words I use, please just ask and I'll try to explain their meaning for you.There is no double standard.There is evidence life exists. The Theory of Evolution describes the model and method for that life to evolve, the model and method that explains the diversity of life that we see evidenced over time.The question of how that life changed is entirely unrelated to the origin of that life; but that does not mean that the origin of life is not something worthy of study and in fact there is the whole area of Abiogenesis that does study just that, the Origin of Life. And as of this moment Abiogenesis says "We don't yet know how life started".Now Intelligent Design though makes a claim that there is some Designer and that that Designer uses some unspecified model and method to create the diversity of life we see evidenced over time. Intelligent Design claims a Designer, yet presents no evidence that Designer exists.No double Standard.Intelligent Design only wants a special pleading for special creation; it does not want to have to play by the same rules the big kids have to follow.

There is no evidence of the Designer you claim exists.There is no evidence of either the method or model that your asserted without evidence designer used.We know the designer of this old house was a human just like you and me and we know the method and model used by the designer of this old house used.Intelligent Design can lose in the courts but can NEVER win in reality until and unless you present evidence that your asserted Designer exists and evidence that supports the method model that Designer critter used.It really is that simple.

That quote really pissed me off. As a Christian Evolutionist I've never been bought or even rented (well, maybe by a few young ladies once) and I could really use the money.