My Abiogenesis Challenge

[miknik5]

He wants to be given the respect that everyone else has to earn.

Who?

GOD?

 

[miknik5]

Science treats abiogenesis as a possibility it can test and research. If you can't show how creatio ex nihilo can be tested through the scientific method, then you can hardly blame scientists for not testing it.

Of course not
Scientists can only back into what is physically given up to a point

And no further

Because it is based on physical evidence already present

 

[miknik5]

Disappointed, but are you surprised?

Biased condescension?

No
Not surprised

 

[miknik5]

Insofar as science is concerned? Zip, zero, and ziltch.

Go peddle appeals to authority and tradition elsewhere.



Come back when you can test that.



I did. You accepted my response, remember?

It was your follow up question that gave you a case of mock indignation.

We don't have to

 

[lesliedellow]

Let's go way back before there was any physical evidence that a scientist could use to test his understanding of the physical world in which he lives

Can we do that

A historian can use evidence available to him in the present to deduce what happened in the past. A scientist can do the same.

 

[miknik5]

A historian can use evidence available to him in the present to deduce what happened in the past. A scientist can do the same.

Up to a point sir

Who was before GOD?

 

[lesliedellow]

Up to a point sir

Who was before GOD?

What has God got to do with anything. Science has nothing to say about him, but it has plenty to say about biological history. God is the theologian's province.

 

[miknik5]

What has God got to do with anything. Science has nothing to say about him, but it has plenty to say about biological history. God is the theologian's province.

EVERYTHING

 

[AV1611VET]

What has God got to do with anything. Science has nothing to say about him, but it has plenty to say about biological history. God is the theologian's province.

Please read the examples I gave in the OP.

This thread deals with someone bringing abiogenesis into the equation.

How would he be told to leave it out of the discussion?

 

[lesliedellow]

EVERYTHING

He has nothing to do with the evidence for evolution.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who?

GOD?

No, AV1611VET... although it's hardly the first time someone (usually himself) has mixed those up.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Iggy the magic elf?

Are scientists allowed to push their own personal agenda by condescension

Does that always translate to proven TRUTH?

Or just a scientist pushing his weight by condescension

Iggy the Magic Elf -- why not?

The point is that so long as life exists, Evolution by natural selection doesn't really care who or what put it there.

 

[TLK Valentine]

We don't have to

Nor does anyone expect you to.

 

[lesliedellow]

Please read the examples I gave in the OP.

This thread deals with someone bringing abiogenesis into the equation.

How would he be told to leave it out of the discussion?

Can you tell me what sense it would make to tell somebody they cannot discuss a hypothesis about physical origins when it is physical evolution which is being discussed? It makes sense to bring God into the discussion when it is his role in creation which is being discussed.

To put it at its simplest, theology is not relevant to the How? question, and science is not relevant to the Who? question.

 

[TLK Valentine]

EVERYTHING

Prove it.

 

[bhsmte]

We don't have to

And, you cant.

 

[miknik5]

He has nothing to do with the evidence for evolution.

Well. No we're the reason for that

 

[miknik5]

And, you cant.

Prove it.

GOD

ONE TESTIMONY
some will testify to
Some will testify against

But THE TRUTH is THE TRUTH
Regardless

 

[miknik5]

And, you cant.

I don't have to
The verdict is in

 

[bhsmte]

GOD

ONE TESTIMONY
some will testify to
Some will testify against

But THE TRUTH is THE TRUTH
Regardless

What truth? Please demonstrate.