Should...

Until someone provides a reason why it couldn't happen without any intelligent input, they don't have to.

Reproducing natural phenomena does not indicate that intelligence causes such phenomena. Ski resorts produce snow with machines. Does that mean snow is intelligently designed? What about gravity? I can test gravity anytime I like. Does that mean God guides everything I drop to to the ground?

How could that same intelligent individual prove that abiogenesis could occur without any intelligent input?

Click to expand...

Set up an experiment that replicates natural phenomena leading to abiogenesis

FoeHammer said:

How could that same intelligent individual prove that abiogenesis could occur without any intelligent input?

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

To my satisfaction? By simulating a reasonably plausible natural situation and observing stepping stones towards abiogenesis.

To your satisfaction? You tell us.

FoeHammer said:

With this in mind why do you think that they are bothering with theories and experiments in this area?
Are scientists just wasting time and money?

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

Gaining knowledge is never a waste of time or money.

FoeHammer said:

It is if it serves no purpose.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with that. Knowledge is valuable in its own right.

FoeHammer said:

So, in your opinion, what purpose does it serve?

Click to expand...

Advancing human understanding of the universe.

FoeHammer said:

It is if it serves no purpose.
So, in your opinion, what purpose does it serve?

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

You have a definition of purpose which does not include the accumulation of knowledge. This definition is not universal.

FoeHammer said:

With this in mind why do you think that they are bothering with theories and experiments in this area?
Are scientists just wasting time and money?

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

There are several possible reasons.

To show that it can happen.
To show which of a variety of possible processes is most likely.
Out of sheer curiosity.
To expand human knowledge.
To strengthen the theory of evolution.
To show the glory of God's creation.

Lots of reasons, but none of them matter to what you are talking about. The tests and experiments show that something can happen. The experiments themselves have intelligent input, but that does not mean intelligent input is required for the basic process itself. If there is a barrier preventing an experimental result from happening naturally, than this barrier should be evident and further expermentation should show that it does in fact preclude a natural occurence.

In regards to abiogenesis specifically, the basis of the experiment is standard organic chemistry, and the only real requirement is that the proper elements and molecules be present. The chemical reactions occur without experimenter input.

As an example, if I mix an acid and a base in a beaker, a salt-water solution will result. It is safe to say that if an acid and base come into contact naturally under the same conditions, the same thing will happen. Until someone proposes a reason why it would not occur naturally, there's no reason to suspect that it wouldn't.

Similarly with abiogenesis, if a scientist can put a collection of chemicals into certain conditions, and basic life results, there is no reason why these chemicals coming together naturally wouldn't give the same thing.

Such an experiment does not need to prove absolutely what happened at the point of life's origins, but rather, for now, it just needs to show that life can originate naturally. If it can, then abiogenesis is possible. If abiogenesis is possible, and there is nothing to stop it from happening naturally, there is no reason to suppose any superfluous explanations for the beginning of life.

FoeHammer said:

Should some intelligent individual ever manage to solve the problem of abiogenesis in a lab I shall be extremely quick to point out that it required intelligence to do it.

Click to expand...

In the same sense of concluding that it always takes intelligence to create water because a person set up an ice-to-water experiment.

Doing abiogenesis in a lab =/= an intelligent being has to be there to create life. The whole point of abiogenesis experiments like the Miller-Urey one is to show that given certain conditions, you get organic molecules and you get life - no one has to intervene to set it in motion. Pointing out that the fact that someone set up the experiment isn't a terribly good argument against abiogenesis.

FoeHammer said:

It would require intelligence to set up the experiment.

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

It requires intelligence to model natural environments in the lab. So what. This doesn't mean that the natural environment required an intelligence. Like other examples above, diamonds can be made in the lab by recreating natural environments. Does this mean that all diamonds require intelligent design? Of course not.

What if someone simulates the envirenment of the early Earth and then creates it? There would be no intellegent input then.

FoeHammer said:

...some intelligent individual ever manage to solve the problem of abiogenesis in a lab I shall be extremely quick to point out that it required intelligence to do it.

Click to expand...

Therefore everything that has been studied must be caused by an intelligence, someplace, somewhere? Isn't it lucky you just happen to have a god hanging around that you're more than happy to lend everyone as the "intelligence" behind everything?

Does it require intelligence to fall to the earth since it required intelligence to figure out what gravity is? This is a horrible fallacy you've presented.

Question: How could that same intelligent individual prove that abiogenesis could occur without any intelligent input?

Click to expand...

By showing that the process can occur without intelligent intervention.

Yep: the argument that when scientists simulate evolution or abiogenesis in the lab that this proves nothing because the scientists designed the simulation is a pretty empty, sour grapes sort of argument.

All the scientists are doing in this case is reproducing natural conditions or doing so with alterations that allow the experiment to proceed on a human scale without substantially changing what the experiment demonstrates.

If you claim that their intelligence in designing the simulation has anything to do with the results requiring intelligence to produce, then you clearly just don't understand what the word "simulate" means.

I have a friend that sets up experiments to grow plants. To be honest I don't think the plants need intelligence to grow cos the guys a little dopey.

FoeHammer said:

It would require intelligence to set up the experiment.

FoeHammer.

Click to expand...

It would only require intelligence to accurately simulate or re-create a scenario that originally may have happened without intelligence.