Replies

"In the case of the origin of life, there is no single accepted theory. It is called an argument of ignorance exactly because we don't know the details."

No, it's called an 'argument from ignorance' because you don't even know if the details exist at all. This is a totally different realization altogether.

"Science keep looking and you throw up your hand and say God did it. What is the evidence you provide to support your contention? Your own ignorance."

Actually, all of the work done to date demonstrating the impossibility of either life or the universe spontaneously creating itself is the evidence. It is only the 'a priori' commitment to naturalism that lets you pretend that a 'natural' origin even exists.

"It's a very tenuous position you put God in. You have relegated his acts to the decreasing number of unknowns. Everytime science fills a gap in knowledge, God looses a little richness."

Actually not. The naturalist work done to-date continues to confirm the impossibility of either the universe of life assembling itself spontaneously. The evidence against this myth grows larger each day.

I do recognize your need to generate the strawman argument claiming that creationists assign all unknowns to God. It appears to support the naturalist paradigm.

The wonder of God's creation grows daily from both science's successes and failures.

Course, you have to get your head out of the 'commitment to naturalism' box to even begin to see such a thing.

Actually, all of the work done to date demonstrating the impossibility of either life or the universe spontaneously creating itself is the evidence.

The naturalist work done to-date continues to confirm the impossibility of either the universe of life assembling itself spontaneously. The evidence against this myth grows larger each day.

What "work done to date?" And what evidence?

"Actually, all of the work done to date demonstrating the impossibility of either life or the universe spontaneously creating itself is the evidence. It is only the 'a priori' commitment to naturalism that lets you pretend that a 'natural' origin even exists."

And there you go again. You can't demonstrate something is "impossible" without arrogantly boasting you have tried all possibilities. Have you tried all the possibilities or do you just give up easily?

"I do recognize your need to generate the strawman argument claiming that creationists assign all unknowns to God. "

It only appears to be a straw man because religion (superstition in general really) has been slapped down so many times in the past that nobody want to own up to the tar baby of geocentricism and the other garbage that was previously held as truth.

"Course, you have to get your head out of the 'commitment to naturalism' box to even begin to see such a thing."

Hey, I'm your easiest convert. Bring me a pound of godflesh to stick under the microscope and I'll pick up the banner and charge with you.

Actually, all of the work done to date demonstrating the impossibility of either life or the universe spontaneously creating itself is the evidence.

Um, so? Of course modern evolutionary theory, being a theory of universal common descent, requires the denial of "spontaneous generation": the theory that life comes into existence from non-life as a regular phenomena in nature rather than, say, as a unique result of some process of chemical evolution or the like.

Obviously if life is continually, or even intermittently, coming into existence spontaneously then all living organisms will not share a common ancestry.