Evolutionry/religious nonsense

When I read what NASA was trying to do on cicerones link to abiogenesis, it seemed obvious to me that intelligence with abilities greater than ours is necessary to start life. It is at least one logical possibility.

There is no evidence to support that Life started without some intelligence lining up all those parameters at NASA pointed out.

To me the evidence suggests that somebody with a little more intelligence and a little greater abilities than ours is needed to start life.

Whatever evidence (other than unsubtantated speculation) can you provide that supports it can start without intelligence?

rather cliche?

I doubt very much you have a sense of humour.

Lots of bitterness though, something I suppose.

Science doesn't look for evidence to support that [ID] assumption. Science gathers evidence and then proposes naturalistic hypothesis to explain the evidence.

Smithsonian Controversy

In 2004, in my capacity as editor of The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, I authorized “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” by Dr. Stephen Meyer to be published in the journal after passing peer-review. Because Dr. Meyer’s article presented scientific evidence for intelligent design in biology, I faced retaliation, defamation, harassment, and a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History that was designed to force me out as a Research Associate there. These actions were taken by federal government employees acting in concert with an outside advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education. Efforts were also made to get me fired from my job as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Subsequently, there were two federal investigations of my mistreatment, one by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in 2005 , and the other by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform in 2006. Both investigations unearthed clear evidence that my rights had been repeatedly violated. Because there has been so much misinformation spread about what actually happened to me, I have decided to make available the relevant documents here for those who would like to know the truth.

But by extension, scientism not only doesn't look, it excludes anything but naturalistic possibilities, i.e. - Methodological Naturalism.

I have nothing against the scientific method but to denigrate those who like the basic method but not the extension to scientism (the dogmatic insistence that materialism is all there is) is just naked prejudice.

I'm going to separate your arguments from BrianJ's for a moment and ask, what exactly are you trying to say with regard to abiogenesis? Because given what Science is, you are never going to be able to deduce that an intelligent designer with supernatural universe creating abilities exists. All you are ever going to be able to do is show that we have a mystery we haven't solved yet, and that's all Science ever really does anyway. And we already know that.

With all the whacky **** you believe, you've got a gall to suggest that anyone else is delusional

Re: Leadfoot (Post 6638515)
Leadfoot wrote:
But by extension, scientism not only doesn't look, it excludes anything but naturalistic possibilities, i.e. - Methodological Naturalism.

That is correct, science is based on the philosophical assumption of Methodological Naturalism and anything outside of that is rejected out of hand. And I would point out that if you ever were able to construct a scientific theory which proved the involvement of a "magical" entity, you would essentially be moving that magical entity out of the category of "supernatural" and into the category of "natural". That is partly why it's impossible to prove, or even imply the existence of a supernatural entity through scientific methods.

When they believe in an invisible god that's all over this planet all at once, keeping track of all homo sapiens, ya gotta wonder who is delusional. I wonder how many millions of people pray at the same time

One of my big problems with ID is the inability to absorb (or denial) of good hard data and evidence of what happened to life wrt to the extinction events that occured through time. We "celebrate" the great 5 extinction events and they are so defined by the percent "dying" of then living species.

There are actually 25 (or 26) extinction events that, many of which , seemed to have major effects on natural selection (by making species less "fit" or having species :radiate" into several niches. The data is quite clear and is reinforced by sedimentary, fossil, vulcanology, isotopics, isotope ratios, paleosol, amber, and fossil pollen, etc etc .


These lesser extinction vents saw many Species that were going along and got wiped out with no further traces,(like trilobites) or species jut plodding along, radiating and then dying off while perhaps leaving some daughter specis (like dinosaurs), or just seeing the changes that occurred without any apparent direction or reason. In each of the lesser extinctions we can see the environmental changes that spurred xpansions or extinctions. We can also see the flourishing of new resources like plant foods expand to create niches for grazing or browsing(and corresponding foot tracks and ichnofossils appear almost in association)

If I were an IDer, Id be working like crazy (If I were an ID Scientist)
to show how all this edaphic change going on was "Intelligence defined"
So far though, nobody has taken up any available discoveries to do that, the IIDers seem to rely mostly on denial and"me too ism".

When a major group of animals exists for over 250 million years, has expanded into thousands of genera and tens of thousand species, then disapperss without any connection to subsequent life, whats an IDer say about how his guy works his magic.