The pristine question

Hi ssope, and welcome to the fray.I find your word choice a little curious:

quote:

---

pristine

​

adjective

​

1. having its original purity; uncorrupted or unsullied.
2. of or relating to the earliest period or state; primitive.

---

Can you explain why you chose this word (expand on it)? First off evolution only deals with life, not the origin of life (that falls under the science of abiogenesis):

quote:

---

2. the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed from nonliving matter

---

Tangle, in Message 8, explains that the mindless chemical reactions occur due to the functions of chemistry - the chemical reactions only occur in certain ways.We also know that prebionic molecules exist in space and were common on the surface of the earth and in the oceans. see Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I) and Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) for more on this.They are old threads, and much has been learned since, but they give you an idea of the current research into this question of the origin of life on earth.Of course, once life exists, evolution takes over, and you have a two-step process that mindlessly "chooses" those forms by their relative ability to survive and reproduce better: Like walking on first one foot and then the next.The earliest, simple life forms known are single cell blue-green algae, and they would be subject to the processes of evolution, which we can define as: We can also define life as any formation of molecules that undergoes evolution.These evolutionary processes are also mindless, and as Stile explains in Message 6, they occur over many generations before the first "minds" evolve, and more generations before minds aware of what is happening around them, or become conscious of being part of the processes.It's like equating a consciously chosen hike across the united states with a baby's first stumbling steps. There's a lot that happens in between.Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : .

The open-minded skeptic will say that we do not have the knowledge and information at this time to answer the question of how life came to exist on earth. We know that it did not exist 4.5 billion years ago, but that it did exist 3.5 billion years ago. We also know that the first known life was primitive single cell organisms with no nucleus in the cell, that it took another billion years to develop cells with nucleii and multicellular life.The lack of knowledge does not mean {god/s} or their surrogate "Intelligent" Designers were involved, for we have even less evidence of that process even existing. Then you are off to a bad start: you haven't made a case for anything but a (probably temporary) absence of knowledge. Current gaps in knowledge prove nothing but a current gap in knowledge. The open-minded skeptic will say that there is no need to jump to conclusions until more information is available. Those interested in the question can pursue it scientifically as much as they like. Something IDologists seem incapable, or remarkably reluctant, of actually doing. Then you might want to get started.Please see my thread Is ID properly pursued? -- it explores what is needed to undertake a scientific approach:

quote:

---

The search for the evidence of design must be done by those with the most capable trained "eyes" free of constrained perspectives - the most open and complete knowledge of the physical workings of the universe and all it contains ... matter, energy, life. Anything less will likely lead to mistakes or a lack of understanding to see the actual fingerprints of design.

​

Without as complete a base of knowledge as possible we could be looking at a watch with the mind of a frog, or we could be like a child, bemused by a kaleidoscope of pattern when there is none ... we could be unable to properly observe and evaluate the evidence before us.

---

This brings me to the concept of the Open-Minded Skeptic -- a person willing to entertain the possibility of concepts such as ID, but skeptical of the probability, given the lack of evidence for it. One who is as skeptical of his knowledge as he is of the knowledge of others.If you have scientific evidence for ID, then by all means present it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Another thought is that it's a new school year, and we could be seeing something related to assignments ...We'll see.Enjoy