gene90:
The difference is that abiogenesis itself has some evidence going for it.
John Paul:
Yeah, evidence shows it is as close to impossible as you can get. But I guess that is the only way you guys can say any Creationist version of biological evolution is not science because it starts from an "unnatural" beginning. Of course no one mentions abiogenesis is a big fairy tale.
Which specific theory are you criticizing and exactly what is impossible about the particular theory?
gene90:
Now, about ID. We start with a pre-supposed God, and some elements God has already made.
John Paul:
ID does
not start with a pre-supposed God. God is a possibility but not a necessity.
johnpaul: ID looks at life and its
specified complexity and
infers an intelligent designer. The mechanism for ID would be very similar to Dr. Spetner's
Non-Random Evolutionary Hypothesis which he lays out in his book
Not By Chance.
Evolution isn't random in the first place. Only mutations are random in relation to fitness. So first, you are arguing against a strawman. Second, please explain how is complexity solely attributable to design?
gene90:
How does God reach down from Heaven and make the molecules align to generate a living thing?
John Paul:
I will put it this way,
IF God did cast a spell to Create life, than any science that tries to attempt a different answer is worthless because it is
not indicative of reality.
This poses a very interesting question then. Why would direct intervention by God not leave behind any evidence. Mind you, I'm not asking for a big firey sign in the sky, I'm asking for evidence that would be the result of such an event. I see no reason why such an event wouldn't leave evdience. Could you Explain why it doesn't?
gene90:
How are you going to find the mechanism, and how are we going to test it empirically?
John Paul:
Read Spetner's book. But now I have to ask you, how do you test that procaryotes can/ did evolve into eucaryotes?
I've read it. And you look specifically at the genetic evidence of the remaining ancestors as well as chemistry. There are several theories of how this occurred, Spetner doesn't deal with any real arguments made in biology currently and therefore misses the mark on having any relevance to the question. Or perhaps you could discuss a couple of the theories for us?
gene90:
You see...if the naturalistic version can use abiological processes to make amino acids,
John Paul:
Under controlled laboratory experiments, which is hardly natural.
????Controlled to simulate past environments. The original experiment Miller-Urey got that wrong, but I'm unclear why controlling for the environment at the time is a bad thing. Could you explain this to me?
johnpaul: EvBack to the point- leaving out origins the Creation model of biological evolution is just as scientifically valid as any theory that states common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate.
So what are the testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications of the creationist theory?You haven't bothered to do this yet.
Now, specifically, since you won't be able to provide a scientific theory of creation, why should it be taught in science classes?
Cheers,
Larry