Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[rjh4 is back]

Regarding part 2 from above, if I were to follow your reasoning, I could propose the hypothesis:

"Dirt particles colliding with other dirt particles produces life from non-life."

and that is enough to support the claim:

"There is a natural mechanism by which life can come from non-life."

I have to say, this response tempts me to lower my estimation of you. You can't possibly be so dim as to think that's a scientific hypothesis and still spell as well as you do. That means you're disingenuously presenting a strawman version of my position, which I don't think is too hard for someone with a high school education to grasp correctly.

The extant hypotheses on abiogenesis are thoroughly grounded in what is known of organic chemistry,  biochemistry and conditions present during the era in which the earliest signs of life are detected. WTF is your 'dirt particles collide' based on besides a combined strawman and appeal to ridicule?

That does not follow. Just because someone proposes a hypothesis regarding a particular mechanism does not mean that it is actually such a mechanism.

When you claim there is no natural mechanism, it's a claim of knowledge or certainty that such a mechanism does not exist. All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism, and then it becomes clear that you have no way to know that there is no such mechanism, or your certainty is unjustified, and you're speaking ex rectum.

If I say there's no way you could have driven to Columbia, SC this morning; you don't have to prove that you actually drove to Columbia, SC this morning to refute me; all you have to do is show that there IS a way you could have done it, because my claim was that there isn't such a way.

If you're being forthright, I don't see why this concept would be so hard for you.

I was trying to show you how the logic didn't seem to flow for me and maybe I was focusing on the wrong part of your position. Of course I was just making something up as the hypothesis. But my point was that some, if not all, proposed hypotheses on this subject, may be wrong. (I was just picking a ridiculous one that all would agree was wrong.) How can a claim that there is no natural mechanism be unsupported based on hypotheses that are wrong or even potentially wrong?

Let me explain it this way:

You say: "When you claim there is no natural mechanism...All it takes to refute that claim is a possible natural mechanism". Given any of those "possible" natural mechanisms, would it not be fair of me to then say: "Prove that the natural mechanism can produce life from non-life, and until you do my claim stands"?

As I said above, if somebody actually produced life from non-life in the lab, I would agree that my claim would then be unsupported.

---

I looked at this some today. Did you read this yourself? If so, I wonder what you think of it. What do you agree with and what do you not agree with?

Let's take the article Mr. Agenda provided.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/f...9.471.html

Is that historical science?

I would say so.  What about you? Seems like even the answers in genesis folks would.

If you read the genesis article regarding historical science it states that creationists presuppose magic. From the article: "Just as evolutionists weren’t there to see evolution happen over several billion years, neither were creationists there to see the events of the six days of creation. The difference is that creationists have the Creator’s eyewitness account of the events of creation,...". See, magic.

I choose not to presuppose magic. That is the difference. Magic is not needed. In the past, magic was a nice way to explain things away and make people comfortable. Today, it is no longer necessary except as a mental crutch. If you need the crutch to feel comfortable that's fine, I'm OK with that. Just don't push that the crutch is necessary for anyone but yourself.

The nature article is not historical science. It's the reporting and discussion of a scientific experiment. Was the experiment successful, yes. Did the experiment give insight to the possibility of early complex molecules forming, yes. Do I think their lab experiment was analogous to early earth or it's conditions, more than likely not. but a step in the direction of learning.

The genesis folks (and I believe you're one) would say "you don't have the complete answer, therefore god magic is necessary, thank god that we can be comfortable and safe now." 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_...al_science

I am not an answers in genesis person. I am familiar with them but I do not work with or for them in any way.

So other than you disagree with the presuppositions that they take to interpret things, what do you disagree with in their definitions? Note, their definitions are pretty generic and would include any presuppositions, including yours. Or are you arguing that science, by definition, cannot be done if one takes an presuppositions other than naturalistic ones? How would you define science and historical science?

Sure...the nature article itself is not historical science. I thought it would be clear that I was talking about the science being reported on. Do you agree that is historical science?