The Fossil Record: Evolution and/or Progressive Creation

This is where the Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses (MMWH) can be useful, as well as not working in isolation to help overcome or reduce such tendencies:

"The concept of the MMWH was advocated over a century ago by the geologist Thomas Chamberlin (1890) in a paper that was later reprinted in Science—a testament to the perceived importance of its content. “With this method,” Chamberlin wrote, “the dangers of parental affection for a favorite theory can be circumvented”(Chamberlin 1890). Chamberlin's concerns have a timeless quality that makes his prose lucid and relevant even today. He contrasted the MMWH with the methods of the “ruling hypothesis” and the “single working hypothesis,” and contended that the ruling hypothesis is the worse of the latter two. This is because investigators' affection or loyalty to a theory may lead them to collect evidence to support only the ruling theory, and not sufficiently consider alternative explanations. Chamberlin also criticized the single-working-hypothesis approach, said to be the method of the day: “Under the working hypothesis, the facts are sought for the purpose of ultimate induction and demonstration, the hypothesis being but a means for the more ready…arrangement and preservation of material for the final induction” (Chamberlin 1890)."

From: "Revisiting Chamberlin: Multiple Working Hypotheses for the 21st Century"

Now who's the dog with the bone? We've covered this before and more than once.

While you clearly have a well developed knowledge of cell biology, you admit that you're not actually involved directly in the search for the origin of life. Those researchers who are directly involved have most certainly not, as a professional body, drawn your conclusion about the impossibility (in practice) of abiogenesis.

You'll have to forgive me if I wait for them to show a lead!

And even if or when that happens, all we'll be able to say is that a cause other than abiogenesis was responsible for the emergence of life on our planet. That will be the limit of any statement we'll be able to make. I stand by my advice that some people would do well to avoid making vaulting inferences based on minimal information.

Scientists are shown how to banish any preconceived ideas they may have as part of their training. Many are very good at approaching their work with clear thinking and an absence of bias.

It is impossible to eliminate bias.  It is only possible to reduce it.

Bias is such a well established problem in the world of scientific research that I can't believe students aren't instructed about its danger and how to combat it. Are you suggesting that it's not even touched on?

But to get back to the central issue - those who claim geology supports a worldwide flood are clearly starting from the supposition that the Bible account is fact.

Professional geologists who examine rock strata and the remains of life contained in those rocks dismiss such ideas as nonsense - isn't this the case?

This a superhuman ability; I don't think anyone ever can say they have an absence of bias, and on top of that, why would you want to? Our bias brings to the table what we think is a sure foundation of truthful, honest beliefs, based on what we think is true. No one comes to any issue without some means to measure what they think is true or false. Even doing science takes some beliefs surrounding the intelligible universe. Our issues are our starting positions, where and when we think things begin, and in some cases, if we get past that, why.

Einstein:

" The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

If they believe in the Bible or not is meaningless, and truthfully I could say those that believe the universe is billions of years old only see the strata the way they do because of that. It undercuts the arguments by putting forward a prejudice that may or may not be there. Either way, it has to be the argument, the facts of the discussion, not the person's worldview that matters. You may believe the universe is billions of years old and be right about what is seen in the earth, and you could also be wrong either way; it isn't dependent on our preconceived ideas, only the truth of the matter.

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm referring to preconceptions about how things are that get in the way of seeing how they actually are.

Of course researchers carry around the knowledge they've acquired about their subject but such knowledge doesn't constitute bias. It's the pet notions that some people have that get in the way of accepting new information that challenges those notions.

I find it very hard to believe that researchers aren't warned to be on their guard against the particular sacred cows of their field of work.

This is the difficulty; prejudice on any topic may seem like the natural course of things to one's own eyes. It takes someone with dogged concern for truth that may allow them to get past what they think is true and replace it with the truth. It is doable; many people have changed their worldviews due to evidence and argument; it just isn't easy, a lot can be a play, and it could cost as well.

The 'equivalence' argument - your reason for believing in evolution (etc.) is no better or worse than mine.

This isn't the case. When scientists started to date the ages of the oldest rocks available they didn't have preconceived ideas about the answer they might get. I think many researchers were so shocked at the results they were getting that they repeated their experiments time and again.

The age of the oldest rocks on Earth, including meteorites that have been tested, leads scientists to conclude that our planet and the Solar System is some 4.6 billion years old because that's what the evidence points to.

On so called 'flood geology', there isn't any evidence in rock strata that would lead a researcher to the conclusion that a worldwide flood had taken place. Impartially minded geologists give such claims short shrift, so how does anyone come to such a conclusion in the first place? It's reasonable to think, because they're starting from what they were taught at Sunday school.

Yes, we have covered this more than once, but it's not sticking so apparently we have to review it again:

(1) Abiogenesis is assumed to be true *a priori*, but it has not been substantiated.

(2) My 'thoughts' on abiogenesis are not some private, isolated interpretation, but directly derive from the published peer reviewed literature on the subject.  You don't have to be an expert to read the conclusions of the experts.  So your whole you're-not-an-expert-in-the-origin-of-life-field is completely irrelevant (and an unwarranted, tiresome charge), because the experts themselves acknowledge their acceptance of abiogenesis is based on *belief*, not empirical evidence.

(3) You, yourself, already know all this to be true.  You have repeatedly acknowledged on different threads and at various times that the origin of life remains an unsolved mystery (for naturalism), and you have oft acknowledged the same hopeful sentiments and faith beliefs expressed by experts that hopefully, some day it will be 'solved' and abiogenesis will be empirically substantiated.

(4) Nuance, nuance, nuance.  I said IF we were to draw conclusions right now based on the current scientific evidence FROM THE EXPERTS (which is what all scientific conclusions are afterall: tentative conclusions based on the current evidence), then we would have to conclude that it seems like life cannot spontaneously arise by abiogenesis.  Should future evidence indicate otherwise, then our conclusion would simply change.

***The main issues I take with your approach are:

(1) Your continued mischaracterization of our knowledge about the origin of life as a 'god-of-the-gaps' situation: We have amassed an enormous amount of scientific information pertaining to the origin of life over the past one hundred plus years, and can draw conclusions BASED on that information and what we know about how the natural world operates; NOT based on supposed 'ignorance' of it.

(2) Your insistence that we not attempt to draw conclusions of any kind on the BASIS of that scientific knowledge that we have amassed is fundamentally unscientific: If you want to personally refrain from drawing any conclusions, then that's your business, but you can't put that on the rest of us.  

(3) The bottom line: You are welcome to hold out hope for abiogenesis, but neither I nor anyone else on the planet is bound and required to do the same for the simple fact that we lack *sufficient evidence/reason* to believe that abiogenesis is even true.  I do find it interesting how often non-theists press this point when it comes to what they see as *insufficient reasons* for theism, yet don't press the same when it comes to a purported naturalistic origin of life.  

The point I'm bringing up is that we have to look at the evidence and draw our conclusions, and when we do that, we do bring to the table all we know and think to be true. I'm more of a can we prove what we see today with what we see today kind of guy. I have spent the better part of 20 years looking at issues that had to do with millivolts and picoseconds, what we thought had to be born out in reality when tested in the here and now. You or anyone telling me that they have a solid handle on millions or billions of years ago, I take with a large grain of salt. It is easy to say that this happened millions of years ago; it isn't like you can be proven wrong. If someone can work out some math to suggest something occurred that long ago, the math may be spot on that doesn't mean their conclusions are.

@TruthMuse, 

I think you would enjoy the 'Grand Canyon: Monument to an Ancient Earth' book for that reason.  It will answer a lot of your questions regarding such things like the age of the earth, how geology works, and how we can know what we do about the past. 

I will put it on my list of books to read, I have more than a few from people I disagree with and those I agree with. If I cannot abide by a contrary point of view I've blinded myself to the possibility I could be wrong about this that and even the other thing.

In truth, there's a lot more subjectivity in scientific inquiry then probably most people realize.  That doesn't mean we go to the opposite extreme that suggests everything is uncertain.  That's not accurate.  But neither is the overly idealistic Baconian notion of 'pure, objective' inquiry that most equate with modern science.  

Scientific training certainly includes instruction in bias reduction, but such instruction starts by making clear that it is impossible to eliminate bias, and that it is impossible to ever be completely objective.  It can't be done.  The nature of human cognition makes it impossible.

Again, that doesn't mean bias and subjectivity can't be greatly reduced.  They certainly can.  But they can never be eliminated.

There's another thing that's also very, very important to understand: there's instruction and then there's actual practice.  Every scientist knows the importance of reducing bias and being as objective as possible.  But they also know that knowing and doing are two very different things and that bias reduction and elimination of preconceptions is much easier said than actually done. 

Scientists most certainly have bias and preconceptions and their training can *both* reduce it as well as promote it.  Training is essential but also happens within a framework paradigm based on presuppositions and assumptions that are unspoken and often go unchallenged. 

YEC 'flood geologists' are wrong.  I don't know how many different ways to say it.  I thought we already established that.  I thought we established that a long time ago.  Long before this OP, in fact.  The post that triggered your present reaction was my recommendation of an additional resource on the subject by professional geologists that further shows why YEC 'flood geologists' are wrong.  I keep saying that they're wrong.  Repeatedly.  I don't understand why you keep asking me to confirm this.  Why you essentially keep asking if I agree with myself on this.  Once again, you're preaching to the choir.

I still intend to wait until those who spend their professional careers researching the origin of life pronounce that a naturalistic explanation is no longer conceivable.

Until then I shall take the position that while abiogenesis is highly improbable, those with vastly more knowledge than I possess have not abandoned it entirely.

Your argument is with them, not with me!

I will leave you to your delusions then

You're questioning whether the dating of rocks is reliable? One of the techniques used (radiometric dating) is analogous to a leaking water butt:

Imagine you come across a water butt outside a house and you notice it's tap is leaking at a constant rate. You're told that it was filled to the top last time it rained and it hasn't rained since.

When did it last rain? Simple enough to work out - measure the rate at which water is escaping, measure how far down in the butt the water level has fallen and divide the volume lost by the rate at which it's escaping to give the time taken for all that water to have leaked away so far.

As I understand it that's much the same as how radiometric dating works, measuring the relative quantities of decayed and undecayed fissile material and knowing the rate at which this occurs, calculating how much time has elapsed since the process began.

Not so much rocket-science as 'rock-science'? 😉