And I am saying that if Charles Darwin did such a thing, he attributed the spark of life to have been via the breath of the Creator.

Hi TP,
The way I interpreted it was just chance collisions of organic molecules. Now, if he's pushing the role of the Creator (at least in his comment on the origins of life from this pool) to some role in creating the universe as a whole and the laws it follows, okay…. but I don't think this deviates too far from anything that Kenneth Miller might assume, or Van Till.

Trust me, Eric and Bradford would not let us start with "organic molecules" in our attempt to explain the OOL. After all RNA is just a molecule that contains carbon.

You're an honest person, but I don't trust that you believe that Eric and Bradford would argue against an organic molecule like urea H2N-C=ONH2 being formed naturally through ammonium cyanate being exposed to high temperatures.
I also don't believe that it would be fair to equate the ability to synthesize urea to the ability to synthesize a polymer such as RNA.

I'm not claiming that he never mentioned a Creator. I'm claiming that he did express thoughts and/or had a proposed working model of how life could arise from non-life.

And I am saying that if Charles Darwin did such a thing, he attributed the spark of life to have been via the breath of the Creator.

Trust me, Eric and Bradford would not let us start with "organic molecules" in our attempt to explain the OOL. After all RNA is just a molecule that contains carbon.

Do you want to believe Charles Darwin proposed a model you think was incorrect and Bradford thinks is impossible?

Do I want to believe? I'm just saying what I read from him. Just pointing out to you that he did have thoughts regarding or a model (however developed or undeveloped) regarding how life arose from organic and non-organic molecules. This in response to your claim that Darwin didn't offer a model for OOL.
Where's the confusion?

I'm sure Bradford would explain that a "primordial pool with many organic and non-organic molecules" is something that would occur AFTER the OOL. Where did the "organic" molecules come from?

I'm not a vitalist, TP. Where do you think organic molecules came from? I don't know many that define organic chemistry as the study of molecules that come from living organisms. The more accepted definition is the study of molecules containing a carbon atom; or, the chemistry of carbon compounds.
TP, you're confusing definitions here…. or…. don't have a strong background on organic chemistry.

BTW, I rechecked, Darwin referenced the "Creator" (capital "C"). I misremembered.

I'm not claiming that he never mentioned a Creator. I'm claiming that he did express thoughts and/or had a proposed working model of how life could arise from non-life.

TP: I'm surprised at you. This comes close to rationalization. Do you want to believe Charles Darwin proposed a model you think was incorrect and Bradford thinks is impossible?

I'm sure Bradford would explain that a "primordial pool with many organic and non-organic molecules" is something that would occur AFTER the OOL. Where did the "organic" molecules come from?

TP, I would not call Darwin's statements or subsequent ones along those lines models. We have a model for orbiting bodies that would give us a good means of calculating the future paths of any new planets. There is precision and predictability to planetary orbital paths. There is nothing approaching this for life's origin. In my view you have statements of belief accompanied by references to evidence that suggest hypotheses. A model is pushing it.

I'm surprised at you. This comes close to rationalization. Do you want to believe Charles Darwin proposed a model you think was incorrect and Bradford thinks is impossible?

I'm sure Bradford would explain that a "primordial pool with many organic and non-organic molecules" is something that would occur AFTER the OOL. Where did the "organic" molecules come from?

BTW, I rechecked, Darwin referenced the "Creator" (capital "C"). I misremembered.

Provoking Thought

"Charles" didn't offer a model for OOL. He actually appealed to a "divine" source.

Hi TP,

It might not have been a fully developed model. But Darwin did state the possibility that life could be conceived in a primordial pool with many organic and non-organic molecules randomly colliding and sometimes forming larger - more relevant (biologically) molecules.

Maybe we can communicate better when you have time to stick around.

"Charles" didn't offer a model for OOL. He actually appealed to a "divine" source.

If that is your model, then fine, say it.

Meanwhile, I am finding out some fascinating facts about quantum weirdness that make the OOL problem seem trivial.

Provoking Thought

Until such a model is forthcoming I will stay with the default.

What default? That function arises from dysfunction, that irreducible complexity arises from simplicity, that organization arises from chaos, that information arises from the void? Not sure what default you are referring to, but certainly the initial "default" should be what is intuitively acknowledged as being the prima facia observation (even by the likes of Dawkins): that life appears to be designed.

The burden of proof is thus on those who claim to have discovered how these marvelous things can arise through processes like random changes over time. Charles certainly isn't particularly convincing in his opus, and no-one since has come up with anything else that is much advanced beyond a naked assertion of their belief that life can arise through these undirected processes. You want to talk about evidence and default positions — great, show me some evidence, please. Thus far, I am singularly unimpressed with the "overwhelming" evidence for the traditional evolutionary story.

TP, I'm not sure exactly what your position is, so I won't assume, but if one takes undirected abiogenesis seriously or believes that RM+NS can lead to what we see around us today, they are clearly on the wrong side of the default line.

I have begged and pleaded for Bradford to offer a counter-proposal for OOL.

I'm an engineer. I need working models. Tell me something that has the possibility of working.

Do you have such a model?

Until such a model is forthcoming I will stay with the default.

Meanwhile, there is a proposal discussing the origin of consciousness.

It could even be considered an ID proposal.

Let's do science!

Provoking Thought

I also happen to be of the opinion that Dr. Wells and Dr. Dembski are not much better than glorified snake oil salesmen.

Your opinion is interesting, as my perspective is somewhat different, having personally met and spent time with both Dr. Wells and Dr. Dembski. Do they have a different approach and a different personality than, say, Dr. Behe or Dr. Minnich? Yes. More inflamatory? To be sure. Snake oil salesmen (which connotes fraud and deliberate selling of something that is not what it seems in order to obtain personal profit)? Hardly.

I happen to think the ID Movement has been too focused on proving the existence of God and/or disproving existing evolutionary theories rather than "following the science".

For purposes of this thread, Bradford is talking about OOL, not the broader IDM (whatever that is). It is certainly reasonable to conclude from the current state of the evidence that the naturalistic approach to OOL research may be a dead end. One can blindly accept the promissory note of materialistic faith, as Nick does. However, one need not be an ID proponent or a religious nut to see that OOL is a massive and largely intractable problem for materialistic scenarios — seems like a certain Francis Crick even arrived at the same conclusion. There is nothing about this that smacks of IDM or religion. It is the current state of the evidence, viewed objectively, without the blinders of materialistic philosophy.

Is it possible that a purely naturalistic scenario will ultimately be found to explain the origin of life on the earth? In a theoretical sense, yes, it is possible, but my assessment is that the evidence is pretty much pointing the opposite direction at this point. What should we do in the face of the current evidence? Repeat over and over comforting words to ourselves that a naturalistic explanation is shortly forthcoming? Or might we be allowed to consider the possibility that the naturalistic path is the wrong one from the outset?

To take the latter approach is certainly not unreasonable, given the current state of affairs, and it is certainly not anti-science. Nick is just a slave to his meme, and simply took the opportunity to lob over a weak soundbite. Enough ink spilled on this point . . .