But you will agree that science can never give 100% certainty about the causes of past actions or future events? E.g. it is impossible to say with absolute certainty what will happen when I throw a piece of paper into a fire.
by throwing the paper into the fire, you have introduced a number of variables that will effect the outcome. So it would not be possible to know with 100% certainty what will happen if you ‘throw’ a piece of paper into a fire.
Erm… I deliberately said six billion years. Have you checked how old the earth itself is? There can be no life on earth if there is no earth around at the time. My argument would work just as well if I said twenty billion years ago, when there was not even a universe, let alone a planet earth.
Agreed, but that is not a reason to stop work on what we already have. Science is designed to work with imperfect current knowledge and to incorporate new knowledge as we find it. Shall we dispense with all known science because a fifth force might possibly be discovered in future? If and when a fifth force is discovered science will look at it, find out how it operates and incorporate it.
Research into abiogenesis is making progress with the existing four forces etc. Your idea seems suspiciously close to vitalism which has already been rejected by science.
Yes, further research is missing. The more research we have the more progress we make. For example, there was a puzzle about how pyrimidines originated in prebiotic conditions. Since Powner’s work was published earlier this year we now have a much better idea of pyrimidine synthesis.
False again. Gasoline in your car has certain known effects. We prove them every day. I can drop something and it will fall 100% of the time.
I know well the trap you intended to set.
Scientists can intelligently design experiments determine the effects of prayer. Does that mean the God is intelligently designed? Scientists can intelligently design models of the weather to run in computers. Does that mean that the weather is intelligently designed? Scientists can intelligently design models of how the planets move. Does that mean that there are angels intelligently pushing the planets in their orbits? What is true of the experiment or model may not be true of the original.
Have you any idea of how many other people have repeated the Miller-Urey experiment since 1953 with differing conditions so as to model different versions of conditions on the early earth. As our scientific knowledge about the early earth changes scientists repeat Miller-Urey with a revised model and check the results.
You misunderstand my position.
Not even close.
Further research, but do not claim to the possibility until it is proven.
Agreed. No scientific theory is ever proven. With abiogenesis we have not even reached the stage of theory. We have a large number of hypotheses and not enough data to knock them all down yet. There is still a great deal of work to do.
Here I disagree. We do have some ideas, for instance we know that too much free oxygen prevents the formation of many essential molecules.
I am not aware that the Montgolfier brothers used the aerodynamics of kites in their development of manned flight.
We can’t create black holes in a lab. Does that mean they can’t be created?
Clearly blackholes are yet another scientific conspiracy…
I want to stick to the subject. Science cannot create living things from chemicals. That is a fact. Any attempt to do so by artificial (i.e., non-natural) means would qualify as Intelligent Design.
I believe that one day we will create life in the lab, but it will require far more intelligence and far more design, but that will only support the Biblical view of how it happened the first time, and go against the naturalistic view.
We can’t figure out how bees fly, therefore it is impossible for bees to fly?
God sat in a lab experimenting until he got it right?
Science can not as of yet create life- but that doesn’t show either that creating life is impossible, by man or in nature.
As long as one cannot figure out how bees fly, then it will be impossible to create bees in a lab.
You missed the point of the post- ed seemed to have claimed that because life can not be created in a lab, it could not have arisen naturally.
I think the major concern is that evolutionary theory starts with the premise that it is possible to explain every aspect of life as a product of evolution. In other words, the term “impossible” is never applied to any evolutionary explanation. No matter what the data shows, an evolutionary explanation can be concocted under the premise that “it’s possible that it could have evolved” – in whatever way. Some explanations are falsified, but only in favor of other explanations. It’s extremely rare to find evolutionists walking away from some data with the remark “we don’t know how it evolved”. Inevitably, no matter how minimal the knowledge is, some claim will be offered about how it “might have evolved”.
