Replies

"Life began only once." That's an assumption.

Well, that's true. But what I was trying to say is that we cannot observe, much less test, the creation of life. The origin of life is in the past.

Life is not originating NOW, in the present tense.

As a result, we cannot observe the creation or origin of life and we cannot test or experiment on the creation of life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is no reason in principle that scientists couldn't test hypothesis for the origin of life in a lab.

That's not correct.

And this again highlights confusion over what you mean by evolution.

You could test the hypothesis: Researchers can create life in the laboratory, true or false? Or more accurately state the NULL hypothesis: Researchers cannot create life in the laboratory, and then try to prove the null hypothesis false.

But that is not the question with evolution.

The question of evolution is where did we come from? How did we get here?

First, if scientists created life in the laboratory, they would be using the fore-knowledge of how life operates by "reverse engineering" and copying from existing, natural life. So they would be "cheating" in effect.

That is, they would be imposing INTELLIGENT DESIGN upon their efforts. They would be using what we know about life to GUIDE the re-creation of life.

But the first time around, there would be no benefit of any intelligent design to guide the process. So it is not the same thing at all.

Second, all the researchers would be demonstrating is that researchers can create life in the laboratory... NOT how did life actually begin on Earth.

Again, the problem is DEFINING what the question is. IF the question is what happened the first time, as I insist it is, you cannot test that without a time machine.

Moseley,

I must say that you are an A**h** in the eyes of your combatants.

But my hero, for fighting the good fight against willful ignorance.

Good fight, being defined as one that seeks the truth, regardless of where it leads.

I find it ironic that the reductionist, the materialists have gone “meta” in virtually all there “scientific” conclusions.

Tell me about the “Dark invocations”

Those of matter and energy,

Dark, driven slow like some new language

The unknown necessity for the certainty of uncertainty.

Out here, there no stars,

Out here, we are lost without “reason”.

"Well, that's true. But what I was trying to say is that we cannot observe, much less test, the creation of life. The origin of life is in the past."

So your contention is that science is restricted to only studying phenomena that are happing right now. Oh boy. There goes Geology, Cosmology, Archeology, and a lot of other entire fields of study.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. There is no such restriction in science. We can study the effects of something regardless of when it occured. We can run experiments to recreate conditions and circumstances to see how they come out. We can try to replicate consequences.

The scientific demand that experiments be replicatable is real, but it applies to experiments. Not to the subject being studied. You are confused.

"And this again highlights confusion over what you mean by evolution."

This was already covered. Your confusion is what you mean by evolution. As I said, you have it wrong. Evolution and Biogenesis are two different things.

You may be a good lawyer but science is not your thing. Leave writing about it to other people.