dsgrue3 on 19 December 2012
| timmah said: I never said 'if we can't do it, it's not possible', that would be a logical fallacy. My point was that if we can't do it on purpose, it's highly improbable it would happen on its own. I would also say, if we can do it in the lab, that doesn't mean that's how it happened with 100% certainty. My broader point is that none of this is even close to concrete, there are multiple theories about how life could have sprung up out of the early oceans, and we've been able to synthesize certain components of life in the lab (but not prove how those parts could become a living whole on their own), but none of that proves or disproves that life came from non-life, just as none of it proves or dis-proves the existence of God or intelligent design. The fact that there are so many theories even within the Abiogenesis crowd that it's obvious the scientific evidence we have is very muddy and subjective based on how you look at it. You don't have to be stupid to believe in Intelligent design, just as you don't have to be stupid to believe a different theory on how abiogenesis may have happened if indeed it did. I guess I get tired of the assumption that anybody who believes in God or Intelligent design is somehow a dolt that lives under a rock and hates science (not saying you believe that, but many people do). I can see the same data you can, but as happens even in the scientific community, we can both come to different conclusions without either of us being stupid. |
You go ahead and rely on intelligent design, and the rest of us will rely on the best possible answer based upon observation and experimentation. The difference is we aren't relying on some belief. We're reliant on results.
