News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

You're trying to leverage historic methodology vs. scientific methodology. Thanks! I love history.

The past doesn't repeat (although history tends to do so). A limit of science concerning the past is that it can never say what happened. It can only test for what is possible and what is impossible.

So if science says "A designer =>Joe could have..." It's reached it's limit. But this is still valid science. Science alone will never say anything more, and one needs to turn to trustworthy methods of investigating history if one is to learn more.

Now let's fantasize for a moment: Joe creates life in his lab. This tells us that ID is a distinct possibility. We cannot say the atheist model is a distinct possibility. We cannot say your model is either. At this point, ID becomes the strongest candidate, because it's the only one of the three that's been demonstrated actually be possible. The others haven't been ruled out, but they've got to play catch-up. They need to demonstrate that they too are possible.

Meanwhile, ID is free to continue investigating, turning its focus to historic methods.

Alternatively, ID can attempt to go on the offensive and scientifically demonstrate the others are impossible (I do not say this hasn't already been done, so nobody start.)

You mean "life could have begun by chemicals combining together. Remember the limits of science.


See above.


I does not seem at all to support atheistic abiogenesis. Not to any person paying close attention. I think we agree. But it is always claimed to be supporting atheistic abiogenesis anyhow. On this we may not agree - I don't know.


I think you were sleepy at this point. That's not what I was talking about.

And the mystery of your loyalty remains unsolved.

Now, just to assess where we are, do we both agree that there's no testable scientific hypothesis for what actually happened?

If so, do there exist testable hypotheses for what could have happened aboigenesiswise? I mean the whole thing - not increments. Increments only count if they add up to life.

And not to wander too far astray, but I do have some questions about this model of yours which, if I understand correctly, is based on the idea that on a molecular level, matter is pre-designed to assemble life when given the opportunity.

Is there any evidence for this self-assembling property? Is is still active and available for testing, or has it discontinued? Is there a proposed mechanism by which it operates?