[unlearner]

"And just as there is no distinct, technically precise notion of what life is, against which to construct your proposed experiment."

Defining life may be difficult (I never said it was not), but you cannot hide the failures of abiogenesis behind the lack of a definition. Even if there is no agreed upon definition, there are agreed upon instances of living things.

"Have you really no sense of how ludicrous it is to claim that our supposed incapacity to construct life from 'scratch' will demonstrate ID, while at the same time claiming you don't need a rigorous definition of life to perform this experiment?"

Do you know how ludicrous it is to argue for abiogenesis while simultaneously making the above claim? You claim that abiogenesis is science, even if it has no test, is not falsifiable, and cannot distinguish between life and non life.

"On the basis of inductive logic extrapolating current data backwards in time regarding the DNA of all the primitive living creatures we could dig up."

Your reasoning gets exponentially weaker in direct proportion to the length of this discourse. None of what you are saying has anything to do with non life becoming life. I have heard evolutionists claim over and over that evolution is not about origins of life, just origins of species. You are now arguing against a pet argument from your own camp.

Evolution claims that life we see now is the product of billions of years of gradual change. But the difference in it and abiogenesis is that we can see this gradual change NOW. Lab experiments can be modeled around these processes of gradual change. We can discover properties of life NOW based on the model. Abiogenesis doesn't have this feature, and you are contending that it is unimportant. Still, to you, abiogenesis is accepted science.

"Well, fortunately, we don't try to raise our confidence to the level of proof in science"

In that case, as much difficulty supporting it. You have a real knack for zeroing in on technicalities while avoiding the issue. Do you think science supports the existence of God?

"you may assume from now on that there are a great many things I believe may be so, most of which I will fail to mention in any given note I may write."

Let me repeat your earlier statement: "the only leverage we have for digging into that question, is the historical evidence buried in DNA, and in the stars, and in the rocks."

So, in other words, modeling physical processes which we can see here and now are irrelevant, because that is not how you like to do science. You are only interested in the historical. It is your proof text, your tea leaves, your astrological chart, your inkblot test, for whatever you want to believe.

"[The] results [of the lab test you propose] wouldn't be very conclusive for anyone on either side of the ID argument"

The results would be meaningful, and you have failed to make the case otherwise.

"I have no idea what you are on about here--nothing, I suspect. Physical laws are deeply involved in every scientific experiment or proposed field study."

I was being sarcastic about your demarcation of money. Glad to see you admit the obvious.

"There is strong consensus that an experiment currently scheduled for 2010 will be potentially falsifiable. Several astronomy projects on a currently feasable schedule also appear to be potentially falsifiable."

Yeah, perhaps, but for at least a couple of decades string theory was embraced in spite of not being falsifiable and support was elusive. Millions were spent with the goal of finding super symmetry even though the inability to see it was agreed to falsify nothing. It just might be harder to see than hoped. ST was embraced for mathematical elegance IN SPITE OF NOT BEING FALSIFIABLE AT THE TIME, AND IN SPITE OF THE HUGE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PURSUING THIS LINE OF REASONING (your money demarcation notwithstanding).

[donh]

Defining life may be difficult (I never said it was not), but you cannot hide the failures of abiogenesis behind the lack of a definition. Even if there is no agreed upon definition, there are agreed upon instances of living things.

What, pray tell, are the "failures of abiogenesis"?

[donh]

Yeah, perhaps, but for at least a couple of decades string theory was embraced in spite of not being falsifiable and support was elusive

The same could be said of the relativistic theory of gravity, the theory of continental drift, and the germ theory of disease.

[donh]

I was being sarcastic about your demarcation of money. Glad to see you admit the obvious.

As you are given to spewing endless arguments of little merit and much distraction, and a fair amount of imperviousness to their inherent weaknesses, with apparently little regard for how much of my time you chew up doing so--let me suggest you confine your efforts to making your main argument, and leave the sarcasm to those of a more tacitern temperment.

[donh]

"[The] results [of the lab test you propose] wouldn't be very conclusive for anyone on either side of the ID argument"

The results would be meaningful, and you have failed to make the case otherwise.

There is no case otherwise. Even if you hold your breath until you turn blue.

Should your experiment be attempted, and works, it proves that there exists at least one pathway by which natural agencies could have produced life, since laboratories and their staff are natural.

If your experiment--producing "life" exactly and entirely instantaneously in a lab--fails, it could be because it requires God to make life, or it could be because it takes a long time to create life.

The only way you can make this lame pipe dream of an experiment seem like any kind of significant support for your theory, much less remotely possible, is by pouting until everyone gets bored and annoyed with you, and leaves off arguing.

[donh]

Let me repeat your earlier statement: "the only leverage we have for digging into that question, is the historical evidence buried in DNA, and in the stars, and in the rocks."

So, in other words, modeling physical processes which we can see here and now are irrelevant, because that is not how you like to do science. You are only interested in the historical. It is your proof text, your tea leaves, your astrological chart, your inkblot test, for whatever you want to believe.

Do you really think I don't understand that we evaluate, say, rocks, using our current understanding of physics and chemistry. Are you a rude git, or are you really this much of a cheese-brain?

[donh]

"Well, fortunately, we don't try to raise our confidence to the level of proof in science"

In that case, as much difficulty supporting it.

Science is all about difficulty. Things that are easy and absolutely certain are done by technicians and engineers.

You have a real knack for zeroing in on technicalities while avoiding the issue. Do you think science supports the existence of God?

It doesn't support it or deny it. It just doesn't give a hoot about it. Science and God aren't in a pitched battle for supremacy, except in the minds of some crackpots known as creation scientists.

[donh]

"On the basis of inductive logic extrapolating current data backwards in time regarding the DNA of all the primitive living creatures we could dig up."

Your reasoning gets exponentially weaker in direct proportion to the length of this discourse. None of what you are saying has anything to do with non life becoming life. I have heard evolutionists claim over and over that evolution is not about origins of life, just origins of species. You are now arguing against a pet argument from your own camp.

You are deeply confused, because you don't really understand what you are criticizing to any great depth. Evolutionary theory is, indeed, as advertised, only about what happened after life came to be. Modern science, however, includes the investigation of gradual abiogenesis, for which there is some evidence, as I pointed out, in the relationships between the fundamentally shared genomes of all living creatures--not fundamentally different from the way astronomy figures out how the universe began, or geology figures out how continents formed. You aren't competent to evalute the "weakness" of my argument. You are arguing against a position that doesn't exist, except in comic book versions of science that can be found on creationist web sites.