<twinlark: There is no such thing as "the right pressure". Where does this come from? >

I don't see me referencing "the right pressure". To be direct, I am referencing "the existing pressure". I don't care what it is, what % of reservoirs have that pressure, etc. The fact is, some have a great deal of pressure and that is very hard to reconcile with millions of years.

<The Catholic Church is OK with eons, and that was how I was taught during Religious Doctrine, which is what my religion lessons were called back in the sixties. >

I think it was Catechism when I grew up in the later 60's, though I went to Catholic schools and religion classes were a normal part of that. I don't recall any references in science class to the matter.

< Science is a discipline, a trade if you like which is bound by the rules of the guild, the main one being "thou shalt use evidence to construct your theories and evidence to rebut them". >

I think I've tried to chase this down a 100 times so far, but here goes again: "What evidence exists that life comes from nonlife?"
This is a big ticket item. This is ground zero. That's how I think life's intellectual pursuits need to be addressed for the most part. And yet it's an utter impossibility for the world of science to address, other than "I guess we haven't found it yet, but we'll just assume it in anyway, including the concomitant assumptions it carries. And now that we've done that, look how the results follow the assumptions."

<I don't see me referencing "the right pressure".>

This is what you said in your previous post: <The small fraction that miraculously managed to survive millions of years under just the right pressure.>

<some have a great deal of pressure and that is very hard to reconcile with millions of years.> Why?

<I don't recall any references in science class to the matter.> Why should the Catechism be referenced in science classes?

<"What evidence exists that life comes from nonlife?" This is a big ticket item. This is ground zero. >

If you say so. Can you give me a concrete definition of "life"? And for that matter of "non-life"? I think you may find an operational definition rather than a clear hard and fast distinction that can be applied in all cases.

<And yet it's an utter impossibility for the world of science to address>

159. <Faith and science>: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, <can never conflict> with the faith, <<because> the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God>. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. <The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....> <<284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences>. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....>

<Paragraph 283 has been noted as making a positive comment regarding the theory of evolution, <with the clarification that "many scientific studies" which have enriched knowledge of "the development of life-forms and the appearance of man" refers to mainstream science and not to "creation science".[35]>

Concerning the doctrine on creation, Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma identifies the following points as essential beliefs of the Catholic faith ("De Fide"):[36]

they are glad and rejoice.

Sing to God, chant praise to his name;

whose name is the LORD.

The father of orphans and the defender of widows

is God in his holy dwelling.

God gives a home to the forsaken;

he leads forth prisoners to prosperity.

<Sing to God, O kingdoms of the earth.

and you will leave me alone.>

<But I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

I have told you this so that you might have peace in me.

In the world you will have trouble,

Okay, I did need to go back one more. I lost my train of thought so you were correct in that reference.

<OCF: some have a great deal of pressure and that is very hard to reconcile with millions of years.>

<lark: Why?>

The longer the time frame, the harder it is to propose an equlibrium maintained.

<OCF: I don't recall any references in science class to the matter.>

<lark: Why should the Catechism be referenced in science classes? >

There was no major point there. Just my recollection that issue wasn't one that came up in Catholic grade school.

<OCF: "What evidence exists that life comes from nonlife?" This is a big ticket item. This is ground zero. >

<lark: If you say so. Can you give me a concrete definition of "life"? And for that matter of "non-life"? I think you may find an operational definition rather than a clear hard and fast distinction that can be applied in all cases.>

No, I'll leave that to the scientists.

<OCF: And yet it's an utter impossibility for the world of science to address>

<lark: Not at all, if you've been keeping up with developments in biology. But first, let's start with a definition of "life" and take it from there.>

I don't think less of you, my friend, but I'd have to say your approach severely undermines your stand.

On general principles, if you categorically make an issue "ground zero" to the whole discussion, then you should be prepared to define it and defend it, by hook or by crook. To refuse to do so, demanding that the opposition define the key element of your argument makes nonsense of it, and places no onus on the opposition to come up with a definition as you've already forfeited the game.

My feeling, based on studying taxonomy in biology, is there is no clear dividing line between "life" and "non-life". If true (and I'd say it's the easier position to defend) - or undisputed - your argument simply melts away.

Not when we are discussing science's stance on "life" as they are obligated to define it. If a scientist wished to discuss a Biblical principle, and used a Bible term to do so, it would hardly be kosher to demand they define a term they're simply adopting from the Bible.

<My feeling, based on studying taxonomy in biology, is there is no clear dividing line between "life" and "non-life". If true (and I'd say it's the easier position to defend) - or undisputed - your argument simply melts away.>

This discussion is like the proverbial tar baby, ain't it?

<Not when we are discussing science's stance on "life" as they are obligated to define it.>

I don't think science will feel obligated simply because you say it is...You're picking the argument, so you should define what exactly you're arguing.

If there is no real distinction to be made - or able to be made - between "life" and "non-life", then your "ground zero" issue simply becomes a non-issue.

<I don't think we need to have it defined to the nth degree. In any case, it's hardly compelling to suggest since we can't quite delineate life and nonlife that we should give away the whole distinction.>

<I think I've tried to chase this down a 100 times so far, but here goes again: "What evidence exists that life comes from nonlife?" This is a big ticket item. This is ground zero.>

<whatthefat> suggested you look up the theory of abiogenesis. Here's Wikipedia on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin...

you restored the land when it languished;

Your flock settled in it;

in your goodness, O God, you provided it for the needy.

Blessed day by day be the Lord,

who bears our burdens; God, who is our salvation.

God is a saving God for us;

the LORD, my Lord, controls the passageways of death.

<Sing to God, O kingdoms of the earth.

Theory is all about "maybe".

The fact is, it's impossible to have a reasonable discussion about any of this if you refuse to educate yourself in some basic science. Still after all this time you don't understand the premise of science and you still couldn't define the scientific method without reaching for a website. You can't accuse scientists of dishonesty when you clearly don't understand how they actually operate.

<I'm still waiting for the evidence life comes from nonlife.>

What do you want exactly? There have been several experiments showing how various component molecules may have formed. What we recognize as life today (i.e., cells) would require multiple steps to evolve from non-life. Not all of these steps have yet been tested experimentally, and there has not yet been any experiment reproducing the full process from non-life to life, as you should be well aware. So explain to me, how does this justify moronic remarks like:

<<OhioChessFan: <Oliphaunt: Just because we cannot explain this with natural science today doesn't mean we never will. >

Straight out of the alchemy handbook.>>

You slight scientists for continuing to look for a solution. So apparently the only acceptable approach would be for scientists to either:

(a) Accept a solution that has yet to be tested, or

(b) Just say "I don't know, it must have been a miracle, let's move on to another problem."