Replies

There have been thousands of experiments conducted over decades with millions of dollars worth of money by legions of brilliant scientists. Your claim that we have "little valid data" only applies to supported naturalistic explanations for abiogenesis, these experiments have RULED OUT many possiblilities for abiogensis.

There have been thousands of experiments conducted over decades in support of 1) transforming lead into gold. 2) the significance of astrological predictions 3) astral projection. 4) the existence of ghosts.

What you have offered is insufficient reason for considering abiogenesis a science. It is quite obviously not a science in the same sense that classical physics or paleo-astronomy are.

So, the fact that "some experiments" have ruled out abiogenesis has even less foundation than such a claim would have for a recognized science. It took Edison thousands of attempts to find a useable fillament for the electric light bulb.

Should Edison have concluded that it was an impossible task after the first few hundred failures? Science as a workaday activity is mostly failures. How do you suppose we get anything done?

Your examples, though absurd, are actually making my case for me.

1) Transforming lead into gold - because of the experiemnts, we can now do this. THe quantities produced are very tiny and do not equal the costs, but we can now do this. Once we appled modern scientific tools, methods, and understanding of atoms this problem was solved fairly easily. The analogy you are trying to make works against you. It supports my contention that if living cells were as easy to create as the fossil and DNA evidence indicates then we should be able to do it, even as we can make lead into gold.

2) The significance of astrological predictions- I believe these have been shown by science to be junk, even as hypothesis for abiogenesis have been shown to be junk. The Cell Theory, that all cells must come from preexsisting cells, is confirmed.

3) Astral projection and Ghosts - I doubt the resources and talent expended on these two topics equals those spent on abiogenesis. These are topics that most scientists are afraid to investigate due to their worldview.

You have no case Don. All you have is your irrational fear that Christians are going to go around executing people for having some kind of unauthorized scientific beliefs. The giants of western science were all Christians until the last 50 years or so, when Naturalism became the dominant religion/philosophy of many scientists. A lot of them are still Christians or Jews.

You are blowing the "threat", if any, absurdly out of proportion.

What you have offered is insufficient reason for considering abiogenesis a science. It is quite obviously not a science in the same sense that classical physics or paleo-astronomy are.

You are trying the old bait and switch on me here. Abiogenesis is not a science, it is an incorrect hypothesis within the sciences of Biology and Biochemsitry. In the same way Star Formation is not a science, but a topic or field within the sciences of Astronomy and Astrophysics.

So abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis. Your Edison example proves my point. The time, brainpower, energy, and funding devoted to the abiogenec hypothesis in all likelyhood FAR exceeds the meager levels Thomas Edison needed to create the light bulb. And remember, Edison was trying to do something that he had no guarantee was even possible. All kinds of evolutionists are guaranteeing that abiogenesis happened- yet it remains most elusive....

Yup, and like the thousands of experiments on abiogenesis they failed. Are you claiming that failed experiments are proof that something exists? Are you making the moronic claim that because something has been scientifically disproven by experiments it is scientifically true?