You seem determined to entertain.
And you examine artifacts without using the scientific method? You compare sources without using the scientific method?
What type of repeatable experiments can be performed on the information contained in a document?
You've said yourself that science can't tell us what happened - only what might have happened. Historical evidence is needed to find out what actually did happen. This used to be common sense.
The same people who invented the myth that science can explain everything and no other form of knowledge can be trusted are the very same people who are credited with first applying "science" as an euphemism for atheism. It would have been more consistent for them to claim science can never produce any truth at all.
I suggest you consider who you follow and why you follow whenever you are tempted to use "science" as an euphemism for evolutionism.
That's because according to the Discovery Institute and apparently you, "scientifically demonstrating the others are impossible" is best done at school boards and among elected officials and not with scientists. Obviously the evidence is so strong that we should just bypass the people who understand biology and go right to the people who don't.
According to me, everyone's a scientist. I'll discuss truth with anyone, whether they have a keen understanding of biology or not. I submit my participation in this thread as evidence.
Since you never really provided a refutation of any of the steps associated with abiogenesis theory, I don't see how you can make the "incompatible baby-steps" proclamation and expect me to accept it without some evidence supplied by you.
The wiki article we've been discussing indicates incompatibility. Did you read it? Have you forgotten some parts? Perhaps you overlooked the aspects that did not conform to your preconceptions.
A crystal can indeed be a molecule, but it doesn't replicate - it just grows larger and larger. Feel free not to understand the difference.
You mean the atoms just continue to get larger? So much for my chemistry knowledge. I actually thought they added atoms to the crystal structure in order to increase the physical size of the crystal.
Since the atoms themselves get physically bigger (as you alluded to) have they ever grown a diamond atom big enough that they could see the nucleus and the electrons?
I didn't say atoms get larger. I clearly said
molecules get larger. Do you maintain 'molecule' is a synonym for 'atom'? So much for your chemical knowledge indeed!
Of course the amino acids that we found on meteorites were made by man and sent into space so that it would look like they were naturally occurring.
Have you evidence?
It's too bad you and Answers can't tell the difference between an experiment set up to mimic naturally occurring environments from one that is set up to manufacture a particular product.
From all indications, you seem to be the party who is unable to discern between the two. Some choose to believe any chemistry experiment involving a small subset of the chemicals found in life proves abiogenesis. The rest of us disagree.
As AIG points out the cases we have of the latter are such that they could not succeed under the conditions of the former. Would you have me believe this indicates they're confused?
If it were easy to create life in a lab, they would have done it in the 19th century. If it were difficult, they would have done it in the 1940's or 50's. If it were extremely difficult, they would be doing it now. All experimental evidence available consistently indicates it is impossible.
