Re: The Evolutionist Pseudoscientific Method

Oh, sure, Corinthian. If a Creationist used this line of reasoning, you'd rightly reject it. Why do you hold yourself to a lower standard?

No, John, because science has some very specific requirements that must met. If these requirements are not met then it is not science. When creationist claim to use science they are not meeting these requirements, they are not doing science.

And the fact that we can't see God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but you insist otherwise.

My position is closer to Protagoras' – a pre-socratic philosopher who born some 480 years before Christ. He wrote “ As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or do not exist.” So, 2500 years ago, a simple man at the emergence of what is now known as philosophy figured it out.

I have not argued that God does not exist, for what you write is true, lack of evidence does not negate existence. What I have repeatedly stated is that there is no evidence that God exists, it is a subtle but very important difference. I have followed that argument by asserting that since there is no evidence, then the choice of supernatural beliefs and how, when, who to worship is entirely arbitrary.

When all the evidence is put to the crucible (good play/book btw), it indicates common origin. The question of how the first cell arouse is not part of evolutionary science. It is a question for those studying the origin of life. Anti-evolutionists like to lump evolution and abiogenesis together, this should not be done. Whether the first cell/cells arouse by natural means, supernatural intervention or extra terrestrial interference, doesn't really matter to evolution. What really matters is that the evidence points to that/those cells as the point of common origin some 3.5 billion years ago.

Fair enough, but the point is you're still riding a belief that it's possible. Yeah, there are self replicating molecules. But that doesn't explain how the molecules were created in the first place, or why such creation doesn't happen now. "Things are different now." That's a straw man when I offer it, except that it's the most common retort I hear from this line of reasoning. Funny thing is, that's the same reason Creationists give that God doesn't make His presence known like he used to. Same excuses, different belief system.

Things were different then, higher temperature, more radiation both from the planet and from the sun, higher temperature, more volcanic activity, and more electrical activity just to name a few. Are these relevant variables? Are there other variables? I don't know. There is also the point that most of life on earth, still has not be characterized. Even to this day new species of mammals, birds, and reptiles have been found. The microbial world is essentially unknown, so it is quite possible that deep in the ocean near a hydrothermal vent new life has emerged. Abiogenesis could be occurring as you read this.

It has also been proposed that perhaps life is still arising, but it is quickly exterminated by the current life that has had 3.5 billion year head start in survival. Currently, bacteria have the ability to interfere with the growth of other bacteria, or to kill it outright, they can adapt to toxic chemical environments, go into protective metabolic inhibition, they can produce a protective outer shell, and many other survival adaptations. A new emerging cell would not have any of these advantages, it would be like a naked babe in a forest filled with predators. There is no evidence for this, but it is not an unreasonable idea.

And if we know that things were different, and how they were different, then shouldn't we be able to replicate those conditions? Except that we don't know with enough certainty... So, again, hang it on a belief and ASSUME that it must have been that way!

We don't fully know what was different, we can make some conclusions based on the evidence, it remains an incomplete picture. So our attempts to replicate could be missing a vital ingredient, and again, time and space are not on our side. A scientist working 16 hours per day for 40 years is equivalent of 26 years of work and not counting setup time, experimental design, and everything else he might do at most 8 years of actual experimentation. 8 years in beaker versus 1 000 000 000 years in a planet.

So it is not belief, but a logical conclusion, based on the evidence. Evidence that points to common origin. But you again are mixing two disciplines; abiogenesis and evolution.

But your attempt to invoke the authority of Miller (that was an appeal to authority, by the way, in case you can't recongize it) is specious, for reasons you can again read about elsewhere (including at my links), if you actually care enough to examine ALL the data, rather than cherry picking the bits which favor your position -- you know, like you accuse the Creationists of doing?

I think you are misreading me. I did not invoke Miller as an authority. Had I written that you are wrong because Miller says so, that would have been an appeal to authority. I pointed out that the results of the Miller experiment, and that these results address some of the questions that are made by creationists. I followed up by highlight the works of others and how they each in turn address other objections. I did not conclude that all the questions had been answered. I am not sure what you consider cherry picking, I did include any evidence that would indicate the contrary, because there really is none. There are questions that remain unanswered, but questions do not falsify evolution.

And neither do questions regarding abiogenesis.

Showing living cells spontaneously self assembling will not prove evolution it proves abiogeneis. You could argue that humans also like the cell spontaneously self assembled, and dinosaurs, elephants, etc. Like many others you are confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Simply put: Abiogenesis is the phenomenon of living matter arising from non living components while evolution is the gradual change that occurs through natural selection and gives rise to new species.

All the evidence points to Evolution and common origin as the Only Logical Conclusion – and a logical conclusion is never wishful thinking