I have not followed that thread closely however if you wish to explain and help me to catch up I'll give you some honest feedback.

An "honest feedback" is that my model will be a "campfire possibility" that you don't see as a realistic possibility. I don't need to put a whole lot of effort into knowing that will undoubtably be the outcome.

I am requesting more commitment on your part. Two models, head to head.

Challenging

TP: If I create a model based on Penrose/Hameroff will you do a compare and contrast with one you create?

I have not followed that thread closely however if you wish to explain and help me to catch up I'll give you some honest feedback.

I have yet to see a model for the origin of life. Has anyone?

If I create a model based on Penrose/Hameroff will you participate in a compare and contrast with one you create?

Offering a Challenge

TP: If your answer, as a Erdling, is that God created and controls everything we can start talking about the details of that model. If you don't, we can't.

We really cannot. The suggested God hypothesis is a bait and switch tactic. If someone claims a belief in God and attributes God as a cause of physical phenomenon the next very predictable occurence will be a babble of atheist comments rehashing the same non-scientific bilge I've seeen repeatedly. God does not exist, there is no evidence, God is in the Gaps, God is a fantasy… Atheists love this kind of stuff. You could get a 500 comment response to a post evoking these emotions.

I have yet to see a model for the origin of life. Has anyone?

So what does that phrase mean to you when you hear it?

I was the one who said "God Did It". I am not "hearing" it. You are not saying it. You aren't saying anything that comes close to describing a complete model. That is the point. If your answer, as a Erdling, is that God created and controls everything we can start talking about the details of that model. If you don't, we can't.

Provoking

Bradford: If you believe the ID debate is objectively argued by your side you are laboring under a delusion.

People aren't objective. That's the whole point. Science provides us a methodology of reaching objective empirical conclusions.

Make a bold prediction, a specific and distinguishing prediction. Halley predicted the return of a comet. Einstein predicted the bending of light. Mendeleev predicted new elements. Geology predicts the great age of the Earth. The Theory of Common Descent predicts that genotypes will reflect the same nested hierarchy as phenotypes.

Will the genome of a marsupial wolf more closely resemble that of a placental wolf or of a kangaroo? I know what the Theory of Common Descent predicts, and I know what differences to expect.

Eric provided an excellent example. If the genetic code is not the same in all organisms, what should we expect? This was predicted soon after the unraveling of the genetic code. ""¦ if different codes do exist they should be associated with major taxonomic groups such as phyla or kingdoms that have their roots far in the past." "” Hinegardner and Engelberg, 1963.

Zachriel: Science is the methodology we use to help us distinguish what is subjective to what is objectively verifiable.

Science produces data on which people base conclusions. The reasoning by which a conclusion is determined is filled with subjective motives. If you believe the ID debate is objectively argued by your side you are laboring under a delusion.

Bradford: Based only on evidence he is willing to accept. That sums up what may be going on. The "gap" may in reality be an expression of the difference between evidence and the subjectively inspired- what one is willing to accept.

Science is the methodology we use to help us distinguish what is subjective to what is objectively verifiable.

Consider this typical line of reasoning from 800 AD: We don't know what causes the intricate movement of planets across the sky. It must be angels pushing planets on crystal spheres.

Well, in 800 AD the evidence was not available to understand the underlying causes of planetary movements. We have a conspicuous Gap in scientific knowledge. We could point to Intelligent Agency in human manufactured machinery for an inductive argument writ large in the Heavens. But it remains God-of-the-Gaps to justify the preferred conclusion.

The correct scientific answer is we just don't know. When telescopes became available along with more advanced understanding of mathematics, it became possible to devise specific empirical predictions, such as the dramatic return of Halley's Comet. While previous scholars thought comets predicted the rise and fall of kings, Halley predicted the comet.

Zachriel: There is nothing that prevents the commenter, Confused Thoughts, from handwaving away what is known, then following it with a hasty generalization based only on evidence that he is willing to accept. That just compounds the error.

Based only on evidence he is willing to accept. That sums up what may be going on. The "gap" may in reality be an expression of the difference between evidence and the subjectively inspired- what one is willing to accept.