Hi Caedes,
Did I mention that I am an engineer? I am more than capable of telling if something is manufactured and hence artificial. On what basis are you telling me that I do not know my job? Other posters have pointed out that genetic manipulation would also be evident.
What a coincidence, I'm also an engineer and I also like to think I'm capable of telling if something is manufactured. The difference between us is that I think it possible that one day it might be very difficult to tell whether something is manufactured. That time is almost upon us with regard to organic life, since, not just genetic manipulation but whole bespoke lifeforms might be designed by a scientist, and it would be very difficult if not impossible to independently determine their origin.
Quoted from your post 41 "On one side the scientists who claim there is sufficient evidence for artificiality and that all can be explained using Darwinian principles, and on the other those who claim that those are just theories and it is more likely that an alien intelligence designed them." A simple apology will suffice!
I'd love to apologise if it would help, but we already covered this and I thought you had got the point. Here it is again: I put those words into the mouths of one of the parties in the debate. I didn't say it. You get the difference, right?
I have clearly stated that there is no evidence to conclude one way or another on the exact mechanism for abiogenesis.
Wriggle wriggle wriggle. The fact is, no matter however it happened, you believe life originated spontaineously.
If you are going to state that the cause of abiogenesis was a creator then it is a perfectly valid scientific position to ask 'where did the creator come from?' since adding a creator just shifts the problem of abiogenesis elsewhere. When you have answered my point then I will address yours.
First, I never stated the cause of abiogenesis was a creator, for one thing that seems to me to be a self contradictory statement. My point is that science is not expected, or responsible, or required to answer all the questions in one go. If it turned out that spontaneous generation of life was proven to be impossible, the problem of the origin of the creator, whether God or some alien intelligence is a separate issue that cannot possibly negate that conclusion. Now, it is perfectly reasonable to ask, where did the creator come from? But first, you have to have reached the conclusion that a creator exists.
Behe admitted in court that his definition of science includes astrology (this is a matter of record) as such his opinion as a 'scientist' is of no merit, whenever mr Behe manages to get something peer reviewed in a respected journal I will be interested in what he has to say. I have no interest in his career or his appointments to religious institutions.
I doubt there's been a single great scientist who wasn't ridiculed by his peers for his scientific views. The character assisination of Behe is evidence that he has rattled the establishment since they have no scientific answer to the facts he has presented. To correct the impression you give, actually Behe is a practising scientist, he is a professor in his field of biochemistry and employed at a university. I'm disapointed that you would dismiss him on the say-so of others without giving him a fair hearing for yourself.
