Replies

"Do you deny that laboratories and their staffs are natural phenomenon?"

Yes and they are guided by intelligence rather than random natural processes. Have you ever heard of a controlled experiment? It is useful to narrow the range of possibilities in order to figure out how things work. Your argument would through out controlled experimentation and conclude that it does not matter what color is emitted from a particular substance burning, because we can only conclude that all colors are part of a natural process.

Perhaps you wish to contend that only natural occurring intelligence could do this? Even artificial intelligence, if it existed as a rival of human intelligence, could be considered natural.

You are trying to mask a contention against a super natural intelligence. You are again trying to use science to make claims about the super natural. You can't do that. You can't, on the one hand, claim the super natural is outside the realm of science, then turn around and try to make a case against the super natural using science. That is circular.

If a super natural intelligence exists, there is no scientific OR logical reason to exclude the possibility of it performing similar feats as natural intelligence.

If a super natural intelligence exists, there is no scientific OR logical reason to exclude the possibility of it performing similar feats as natural intelligence.

I said this already, about 8 different ways.

You are trying to mask a contention against a super natural intelligence.

Than you can no doubt point out where I did that--of course you cannot. My repeated contention is that science does not address questions of supernatural intelligence, because it is not competent to do so--science does not have access to God-o-meters, so it is none of science's business.

If a super natural intelligence exists, there is no scientific OR logical reason to exclude the possibility of it performing similar feats as natural intelligence.

In fact, there's no reason to think God isn't actively creating life when he used natural abiogenesis to do so. It's just that science can detect signs of natural abiogenesis, but science hasn't detected signs of God. I am frequently astonished at what a feeble God creationists think He is.

Yes and they are guided by intelligence rather than random natural processes. Have you ever heard of a controlled experiment? It is useful to narrow the range of possibilities in order to figure out how things work. Your argument would through out controlled experimentation and conclude that it does not matter what color is emitted from a particular substance burning, because we can only conclude that all colors are part of a natural process.

This is not a sensible or relevant argument. All experiments are, in some manner, controlled. Are you trying to argue that gathering historical data can't be falsifiable--because you can re-rig a contemporary experiment until it doesn't fail? Want to think twice before pinning your hopes on this argument? Paleontologists and oil engineers are always predicting where old, organically generated debree will be located, and then going to look to see if they were right. How is this not experiments that can fail? They sporadically do fail, so that would be a pretty hard argument to make.