Should...

[Belk]

...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.

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

FoeHammer.

Feel free to come up with your own experiment that requires no intelligence whatsoever. Till then I hope you will excuse us as the rest of us try to bother to learn about the wonderful universe around us.

 

[nvxplorer]

Since abiogenesis was not an experiment, your claim that it would require intelligence is a non-sequitur.

 

[random_guy]

Alright! I finally found possible subscriber to intelligent chemistry! It follows the same logic as your argument and would be right up your alley. We all know that the odds of 2 molecules hitting each other are very low, and the odds that an experiment end up with the exact molecular collisions as it did are basically 0. Therefore, there must be an intelligent chemist that guides all reactions. Proof is every single chemistry experiment requires outside intelligence. I'll be glad to have you onboard supporting intelligent chemistry.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

...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.

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

FoeHammer.

And should some intelligence demonstrate spontaneous abiogensis, then I shall be equally quick to point out that it was spontaneous. You are basically saying, 'If A, then A'. A rather moot point, don't you think?

 

[Tomk80]

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.

I think the last sentence is an understatement. Not a terribly good argument? Come on, it's the worst argument possible. It shows only one thing and that is the complete ignorance of the person making the argument.

If someone cannot see that if a certain reaction happens if I create a certain set-up, that this same reaction will also happen if these circumstances occur in nature, there is only one thing to conclude. That person has absolutely no idea what he or she is talking about.

 

[Tomk80]

Alright! I finally found possible subscriber to intelligent chemistry! It follows the same logic as your argument and would be right up your alley. We all know that the odds of 2 molecules hitting each other are very low, and the odds that an experiment end up with the exact molecular collisions as it did are basically 0. Therefore, there must be an intelligent chemist that guides all reactions. Proof is every single chemistry experiment requires outside intelligence. I'll be glad to have you onboard supporting intelligent chemistry.

In chemistry class, we lighted a mixture of H2 and O2 and it produced water. Since we created this experiment, if H2 and O2 get together in a natural setting and are at that point subjected to heat, this reaction will not occur at that point, since nobody set it up as an experiment.

 

[random_guy]

In chemistry class, we lighted a mixture of H2 and O2 and it produced water. Since we created this experiment, if H2 and O2 get together in a natural setting and are at that point subjected to heat, this reaction will not occur at that point, since nobody set it up as an experiment.

This is the biggest strawman of intelligent chemistry. The reaction will still occur, because of the Intelligent Chemist allows it to occur. Again, the experiment showed that you need an outside intelligence to create and perform the reaction. All chemistry experiments show this. Chemical reactions occur in nature, therefore there must be an intelligent chemist setting up and performing the reactions. I won't say who the chemist is, it may be aliens, it may be a Christian God (hint: it's not aliens), but there must be an intelligent chemist.

EDIT: Here's an analogy.

You're walking across the beach and you find a playdough volcano with baking soda and vinger nearby. You know that nature itself can't setup the experiment, but some kid. You can tell. He put the baking sode in the volcano, and the vinger is setup to be poured into the volcano to cause fizzing water to pour out of the volcano and egulf the lego men below. He's the intelligent chemist. Now, using the same logic, all the reactions inside the cells itself are complex chemical experiments. Someone had to set it up. That someone was the Intelligent Chemist.

 

[Belk]

This is the biggest strawman of intelligent chemistry. The reaction will still occur, because of the intelligent chemist allows it to occur. Again, the experiment showed that you need an outside intelligence to create and perform the reaction. All chemistry experiments show this. Chemical reactions occur in nature, therefore there must be an intelligent chemist setting up and performing the reactions. I won't say who the chemist is, it may be aliens, it may be a Christian God (hint: it's not aliens), but there must be an intelligent chemist.

Oooooohhhh. I love it. Count me in as a supporter of intelligent chemistry. It is obvious to me that it is the FSM touching each chemical reaction with his noodly appendage.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is the biggest strawman of intelligent chemistry. The reaction will still occur, because of the Intelligent Chemist allows it to occur. Again, the experiment showed that you need an outside intelligence to create and perform the reaction. All chemistry experiments show this. Chemical reactions occur in nature, therefore there must be an intelligent chemist setting up and performing the reactions. I won't say who the chemist is, it may be aliens, it may be a Christian God (hint: it's not aliens), but there must be an intelligent chemist.

EDIT: Here's an analogy.

You're walking across the beach and you find a playdough volcano with baking soda and vinger nearby. You know that nature itself can't setup the experiment, but some kid. You can tell. He put the baking sode in the volcano, and the vinger is setup to be poured into the volcano to cause fizzing water to pour out of the volcano and egulf the lego men below. He's the intelligent chemist. Now, using the same logic, all the reactions inside the cells itself are complex chemical experiments. Someone had to set it up. That someone was the Intelligent Chemist.

Your analogy is flawed, since you compare one experiment that is highly unlikely to occur naturally with another experiment that is highly likely to occur naturally.
I also like the qualified, 'You can tell'. How?

 

[USincognito]

This is the biggest strawman of intelligent chemistry. The reaction will still occur, because of the Intelligent Chemist allows it to occur. Again, the experiment showed that you need an outside intelligence to create and perform the reaction. All chemistry experiments show this. Chemical reactions occur in nature, therefore there must be an intelligent chemist setting up and performing the reactions. I won't say who the chemist is, it may be aliens, it may be a Christian God (hint: it's not aliens), but there must be an intelligent chemist.

EDIT: Here's an analogy.

You're walking across the beach and you find a playdough volcano with baking soda and vinger nearby. You know that nature itself can't setup the experiment, but some kid. You can tell. He put the baking sode in the volcano, and the vinger is setup to be poured into the volcano to cause fizzing water to pour out of the volcano and egulf the lego men below. He's the intelligent chemist. Now, using the same logic, all the reactions inside the cells itself are complex chemical experiments. Someone had to set it up. That someone was the Intelligent Chemist.

I nominate this for post of the month.

There is only one question I have though, since the part you edited in is analagous to vulcanology which is part of geology, isn't the evidence you cited of an Intelligent Chemist also evidence of an Intelligent Geologist? I mean there's a mining process which basically shaves the tops of mountains off, isn't that just another example of trying to make erosion and metaphysically naturalistic process?

 

[Skaloop]

Your analogy is flawed, since you compare one experiment that is highly unlikely to occur naturally with another experiment that is highly likely to occur naturally.
I also like the qualified, 'You can tell'. How?

Poe's Law strikes again! I think...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Poe's Law strikes again! I think...

That's what I thought, but then I noticed the lack of smilies...

 

[nvxplorer]

This is the biggest strawman of intelligent chemistry. The reaction will still occur, because of the Intelligent Chemist allows it to occur. Again, the experiment showed that you need an outside intelligence to create and perform the reaction. All chemistry experiments show this. Chemical reactions occur in nature, therefore there must be an intelligent chemist setting up and performing the reactions. I won't say who the chemist is, it may be aliens, it may be a Christian God (hint: it's not aliens), but there must be an intelligent chemist.

EDIT: Here's an analogy.

You're walking across the beach and you find a playdough volcano with baking soda and vinger nearby. You know that nature itself can't setup the experiment, but some kid. You can tell. He put the baking sode in the volcano, and the vinger is setup to be poured into the volcano to cause fizzing water to pour out of the volcano and egulf the lego men below. He's the intelligent chemist. Now, using the same logic, all the reactions inside the cells itself are complex chemical experiments. Someone had to set it up. That someone was the Intelligent Chemist.

I remember a kid who started the classroom on fire during science class. This obviously means that when lightning sets a house on fire, that is the work of the Dumb Physicist.

And let's not forget December 17th, 1903. That fateful day when birds (including the bat) were wrested from the grip of the Intelligent Flier, and were finally capable of propelling themselves through the air unaided by the IF.

 

[Morcova]

It is if it serves no purpose.

Now we know why churches don't financially support creation scientist.