[xzins]

The argument given above assumes not merely that the data are incomplete, but unrepresentative. For example, all polls are incomplete, but statistics theory assures us that, if we are careful in our approach to the data, the data should be representative and therefore the 'incompleteness' is irrelevant. Thus, to carry the day, you have to show that the data upon which the ID theory is based are unrepresentative. Of course, this is on the order of the evolutionists' shooting themselves in the collective foot, since they use the same data for their theory.

Awesome argument that carries the day. We use the data at hand to extract a representative sample. If we're told the data at hand is incomplete, then it is incomplete for anyone and for anyone's theory.

That's why it is, imho, best to deal with the observable, the testable, and the historically recorded. If there is a disconnect between the observed and the theoretical, then it's only honest to say that there's a disconnect.

(Aside: Pasteur's observations concluded that "spontaneous generation" was an impossibility.)

[PatrickHenry]

Pasteur's observations concluded that "spontaneous generation" was an impossibility.

This comes up often, and it's a complete mischaracterication of Pasteur's work. I think that someone (or some website) is feeding you some really terrible information. Pasteur showed that bacteria are responsible for the life that was observed to spring from decayed matter. This is utterly unrelated to the "ultimate origin of life" issue. Some background material is HERE.