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
That's an understatement!For those trained in any sort of intellectual discipline the standards are different.
Abiogenesis in the lab?The evidence is overwhelming that life happened by testable biochemical processes that follow strict physical rules.
How about "Godidit with miracles"?"Nature did it and this is how" is qualitatively different from
"Godidit with magic"
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? 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?
Abiogenesis in the lab?
Mother Nature is cruel -- she's a tad more hostile than pristine laboratory environments.Since the 1950s, and starting with the Miller-Urey experiment.
That Post 728 was wrong.It may eventually be possible. What would you say then?
Since the 1950s, and starting with the Miller-Urey experiment.
It may eventually be possible. What would you say then?
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.How?
Yeah, but that is just an argument from your personal incredulity- a logical fallacy.I find it impossible to believe that life of any kind just happened by blind chance.
Dan was talking about when research into abiogenesis began.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.
So the creationists guess is as good as any, then.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.
"Laws of nature" are not edicts. They are merely observed regularity in physical phenomena.Such processes just developed themselves, hum? Rules and laws of nature point to a law maker.