Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Speedwell]

I find it impossible to believe that life of any kind just happened by blind chance.

Perhaps you could expand your answer to my question to explain "blind chance."

 

[Mr Laurier]

I find it impossible to believe that life of any kind just happened by blind chance.

Same here.
The evidence is overwhelming that life happened by testable biochemical processes that follow strict physical rules.
No "blind chance" involved

 

[Estrid]

Same here.
The evidence is overwhelming that life happened by testable biochemical processes that follow strict physical rules.
No "blind chance" involved

"Nature did it and this is how" is qualitatively different from
"Godidit with magic"

 

[AV1611VET]

For those trained in any sort of intellectual discipline the standards are different.

That's an understatement!

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence is overwhelming that life happened by testable biochemical processes that follow strict physical rules.

Abiogenesis in the lab?

 

[AV1611VET]

"Nature did it and this is how" is qualitatively different from
"Godidit with magic"

How about "Godidit with miracles"?

 

[Frank Robert]

So? I was making the point that whatever processes God used, science has no answers other than "Nature did it." Just as we say "God did it." Only nature has to start somewhere. How can it create itself?

You are displaying a misunderstanding of science. Many natural forces like solar variability, cosmic rays or volcanic eruptions and many others are understood. There is a preponderance of scientific evidence that natural forces act on the environment which in turn is responsible for natural selection. There are many things that science does not have the answers for and since science is unable to examine supernatural forces it is left with developing hypothesis for natural forces. Science does not shy away from admitting that it does not have all the answers or that it ever will.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Abiogenesis in the lab?

Since the 1950s, and starting with the Miller-Urey experiment.

 

[Speedwell]

Abiogenesis in the lab?

It may eventually be possible. What would you say then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since the 1950s, and starting with the Miller-Urey experiment.

Mother Nature is cruel -- she's a tad more hostile than pristine laboratory environments.

 

[AV1611VET]

It may eventually be possible. What would you say then?

That Post 728 was wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

That Post 728 was wrong.

How?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since the 1950s, and starting with the Miller-Urey experiment.

It may eventually be possible. What would you say then?

How?

Um ... if it was done since the 1950's, then your post is wrong; if it may eventually be done, then Dan's post is wrong.

Dan says it's been done; yours implies it hasn't been done yet.

 

[Larniavc]

I find it impossible to believe that life of any kind just happened by blind chance.

Yeah, but that is just an argument from your personal incredulity- a logical fallacy.

So, those units of measurements of complexity: any chance?

 

[Speedwell]

Um ... if it was done since the 1950's, then your post is wrong; if it may eventually be done, then Dan's post is wrong.

Dan says it's been done; yours implies it hasn't been done yet.

Dan was talking about when research into abiogenesis began.

 

[renniks]

Same here.
The evidence is overwhelming that life happened by testable biochemical processes that follow strict physical rules.
No "blind chance" involved

Such processes just developed themselves, hum? Rules and laws of nature point to a law maker.

 

[renniks]

You are displaying a misunderstanding of science. Many natural forces like solar variability, cosmic rays or volcanic eruptions and many others are understood. There is a preponderance of scientific evidence that natural forces act on the environment which in turn is responsible for natural selection. There are many things that science does not have the answers for and since science is unable to examine supernatural forces it is left with developing hypothesis for natural forces. Science does not shy away from admitting that it does not have all the answers or that it ever will.

So the creationists guess is as good as any, then.

 

[Speedwell]

Such processes just developed themselves, hum? Rules and laws of nature point to a law maker.

"Laws of nature" are not edicts. They are merely observed regularity in physical phenomena.

 

[renniks]

Yeah, but that is just an argument from your personal incredulity- a logical fallacy.

So, those units of measurements of complexity: any chance?

How about you create life from nothing and then get back to me on how complicated it was.

 

[renniks]

"Laws of nature" are not edicts. They are merely observed regularity in physical phenomena.

So? Why is there order instead of chaos?