What type of repeatable experiments can be performed on the information contained in a document?
Comparison with other documents written at the authorship time claimed by the document in question.
Carbon dating of the oldest copies of the document in question.
Comparison with later documents that should have referred to the original 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.
Archaeologists use the scientific method to minimize mistakes in their interpretation of evidence that they find. Closely detailed documentation of the circumstances and locations of their finds.
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.
Who was it that first applied "science" as a euphemism for atheism? Names and quotes please. I never claimed any this nor have I heard a scientist claim this. Provide support or publicly retract this blatant falsehood.
I suggest you consider who you follow and why you follow whenever you are tempted to use "science" as an euphemism for evolutionism.
I have debated with you in good faith without purposely insulting you or your side, yet you have increasingly spouted invectives that have no other purpose except to evoke emotion from your side and insult mine. Is this what passes for proper human interaction in Christian circles?
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.
Discussion is one thing, providing evidence instead of appealing to emotion is quite another.
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.
Perhaps you have no clue what my preconceptions are. The article as I remember it, stated a number of different hypotheses concerning abiogenesis. Since none of the hypotheses required any of the others to have occurred, they very well could be incompatible. I will read the article again to see what you think I missed about interdependencies of the hypotheses. Perhaps it would be easier if you could point out where one step required a previous one that was incompatible.
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?
From
hereOn September 28, 1969, pieces of a stony meteorite fell around the small town of Murchison, about 130 km north of Melbourne, Australia. More than 100 kg of fragments were collected, several of them shortly after the fall. It is reported that eyewitnesses noticed a strange smell reminiscent of methylated spirit, bitumen or kerosene. This was the first indication of organic compounds being present in the Murchison meteorite at relatively high concentrations. The subsequent chemical analyses were facilitated by the fact that NASA laboratories, at the time of the Apollo missions to the Moon, were well prepared to study extraterrestrial material. In a first report, which is now a classic paper in prebiotic chemistry, evidence was presented for amino acids and hydrocarbons in the Murchison meteorite.[1] It was shown by analysis of the 13C/12C ratios that these compounds were unambiguously of extraterrestrial origin.
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.
Evidence in support of something is not proof. It is just evidence.
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.
So, all the difficult things were accomplished in the 1950's and the extremely difficult things are already accomplished.
So AIG states that everything that science is doing now will never come to fruition because it is impossible? Their claim is true then, AIG knows everything. Do they have the next lottery numbers?
