Existence of God.

And notwithstanding the notwithstanding clause, Mr. Clause has about the same plause (but with a much better cause) than your sky-god's oversized Jewish schnauz.

I did grrrill a steak this evening; but hellfire was unavailable, as usual.
No artichokes either. But sufficient IPA.

Yelling 'Strawman' without explanation is as much a Strawman as any other.

But I won't return the favor. Scientists frequently throw out their own Strawman. How many times have I heard one of them say "Given the right conditions, life 'must' arise, it's inevitable'.

Your turn Strawman.

I think what you really heard was "given the following sets of edaphic conditions , life HAS arisen at least four separate times in earths history". Inevitability of life is an educated guess at best and where we can see that such an occurence was available in evidence, that is (AT least to me), waaay more exciting.

If we find evidence of past kife on Mars, its just more evidence re: this inevitability , but I think wed still hold off making the statement that you posted above. But suppose we did find evidence of life as we moved out of the Solar System and into space, wouldnt that sorta close in on the statement?

Not today, but maybe in some tomorrow.

The more careful scientists do put it as you said but there is plenty of the other. I should keep a record, but the most recent example I can remember is a statement like 'Anywhere you have a rocky planet with water, life is an inevitability.'

That may prove to be the case but I would not be surprised if we find nothing but sterile balls of rocks. It'd be nice to see the answer in this lifetime.

alkali silicate rocks (forms clays and expanding metal surfaces) , ores, lotsa sulfur, and water are all ingredients that our planet exploited . And it happened more than once till it finally took hold. We can prove it DID happen, but that has no credence in being a real thing or that it WILL happen elsewhere.

On A2K, we are mostly entertaining each other, were not in a technical conference.(Everyone has certain skills and experiences not always compatible with the evidence's importance). A really technical discussion about, say, abiogenesis, would be rather dull unless someone is good at stories rife with analogy and accurate evidence.(and they understand of what they speak).

I generally give a pass to anyone with deeply held convictions if theyve got SOME well reasoned evidence somewhere within their discussions.
The "inevitability" crap is more of what guys like Gould would hve said, or Kaku when they were on "Discovery Channel", not among colleagues and students.
Most scientists would keep these utterances to themselves for their own research favorites..
Its entertainment. not science.

If you wish adhere to your specious claim re: your so-called "scientists" go ahead, however I have marginal interest and no particular respect for such weak argumentation. Try logicality and empiricism.

I think you are confused about who I am Chum.

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction. I'll give an example. In Christianity Jesus dies and later is resurrected meaning, in the literal sense, that his body shoots up into space to some undiscovered and undisclosed literal heaven. This is a conflict with the laws of gravity. Metaphorically, this would mean a jump to another level of consciousness, a death, so to speak of one level of consciousness--dualistic--and resurrection to another non-dualistic level of consciousness. Belief has nothing to do with it, except that in the dualistic state of consciousness it's not possible to understand it. Science cannot study this non-dualistic consciousness because science must remain objective and non-dualism is subjective experience.

That's why I say that science must remain objective, any subjectiveness on part of the scientist contaminates the experiment. Likewise, any attempt to claim objectivity on the religious side is bogus--such as claiming the bible as authority for a religion. There is no authority in religion. That's the danger in religion: people claim an authority, either a personal one or a written one, "It is written."

Another example is the Galileo solarcentric model that replaced the Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe. Astrology was both the science and the dogma adopted by the Church that required the Earth be the center of the universe. Galileo showed that the Sun was the center of the solar system, destroying the astrology model that was adopted and reinforced the dogma of the Church. However, the Church resisted the model of Galileo, until 1992--some 360 years later--when it admitted that Galileo was correct. The resistance of the Church put it in direct conflict with the science of the day--an example of religion attempting to be objective, thus destroying its own credibility.

You wrote, "There is no authority in religion. That's the danger in religion: people claim an authority, either a personal one or a written one, "It is written."
People give it authority. The numbers speak for themselves.

But why. Please explain.