Evolution is not Abiogenesis

I would say that Buz's explanation is better, if and only if he means to include divine creation as abiogenesis.Either way it seems that he has nothing worth saying. If he did mean that, then he is making a trivial point very, very badly. If he didn't then he is simply reiterating his position and there is no advance at all.Given that he brags about his hopelessly bad performance in the original thread how can we expect him to actually do better given a second attempt ?

quote:

---

Though some may, I don’t think every creationist claims that evolution isn’t true because it doesn’t incorporate how life started, I think many (such as myself) claim that evolution, that is ~all claims about evolution~ are less factual/believable THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE BE if evolution had more scientific facts about naturalistic origins of life.

---

Firstly, if you don't make that claim perhaps you should leave it to those who do to answer the question. Secondly your uninformed and heavily biased opinions aren't exactly worth much.

quote:

---

I’ll gladly stand corrected if anyone can prove me wrong, but the adamant separation of evolution from abiogenesis seems to be a very recent occurrence only.

---

As at least one other person has already pointed out, it goes back as far as Darwin himself.

quote:

---

I can’t say that it would be affected, and don’t claim that it would be.

---

Then you agree that the truth of abiogenesis is actually irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

quote:

---

How would any study of ID be affected if the designer was;

​

*The Christian God
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster
*Allah
*Spacemen from another planet
*Any other idea

---

There doesn't seem to be any serious study of ID to be affected. Can you point to anybody building a positive theory of ID, instead of attacking evolution ? There's plenty of such work in evolution and abiogenesis but ID seems to be somewhat lacking, offering nothing but speculations and not doing much work to take any of them beyond speculation.But let's deal with the idea of extraterrestrials engineering life. Young Earth Creationism - in fact all creationism - would be out. That's one major change - and probably enough of one to lose most of the big names (most seem to be Creationists - mainly of the Old Earth variety).Miracles would be out, so all the guff about naturalism could be thrown away, as would the desire to redefine science.Looking for archaeological remains of the extraterrestrial presence would be in.We could try to work out what the extraterrestrials actually did. because they would be restricted to naturalistic methods.In fact it looks as if ID could actually stand a chance of being scientific if it endorsed the extraterrestrial visitor hypothesis and started serious work on it.