Congratulations, I knew you would get there eventually! You have a fundamental problem in your scenario if you wish to present it to naturalists, which you are well aware of given your unwillingness to present your scenario in more plausible terms.
Well, no point arguing who got where, are we agreed that my story does not have an absolute solution? There are two views and therefore there is no point in saying that the nanobots are definitely artificial nor definitely natural. This was clear from the outset, and I have no idea why you should say I've been unwilling to do anything, nor what more plausible terms you could want.
I believe that I have already outlined a slightly more plausible scenario for you, myself and others have outlined how it would be possible to recognise a clearly artificial organism.
By the way, no scientist refers to theories as 'just theories' you really need to look up the scientific definition of the word theory and the word hypothesis.
If you'd read a bit more carefully, it wasn't me saying "just theories", I was putting this in the mouths of one of the parties of the debate and you ought to know that this is indeed what they say.
There is nothing wrong with my English comprehension, I was aware that you were attributing the comment to a character in your scenario, you still need to look up the scientific definition of the word.
I don't seem to believe it, I know what the definition is and I am quite happy with the distinction between the two. No, I would only claim your organic motor to be natural if it was the result of natural processes, if the organic motor was made by humans (or even little green men) then it is artificial by definition. The use of organic or in-organic materials is im-material!
You're sticking to your story even though it is self contradictory? You say if an organic motor was made by humans then it is artificial. Yet, if you had not been told it was made by humans and instead had discovered it and studied it under an electron microscope, how could you possibly know that it was artificial? It is, after all, made from organic materials, which you imply means it must be natural. Equally, a novel electronic circuit might be designed using Darwinian principles, upon examining such a circuit you would annonce that it is an artificial design. Same with nanobots. In both cases it is your assumptions that lead to your conclusions, not your observations.
There is nothing contradictory in what I have stated.
Others with more knowledge of biology have outlined how it is possible to identify artificial manipulation of DNA.
At what point have I claimed that the use of organic materials implies that something is natural? I have stated the opposite, that the use of organic materials does not automatically make something natural!
The application of a design process using natural selection to an electronic circuit makes no difference to the fact that the circuit is artificial. Material analysis of the circuit would be sufficient to conclude the circuit was artificial with no assumptions required.
All other areas are up for grabs in the scientific world, as long as you can produce empirical evidence to back up a claim then any scientific law or theory can be altered as long as all the existing evidence fits.
I've no problem with that. All I said was that even scientists take some things on faith.
An example of that being?
From my viewpoint we may not have an acceptable hypothesis for abiogenesis for the moment but I see no reason to add a supernatural sky daddy as the cause
sigh... this is why I asked the question in the first place. In the scenario I presented, the point was whether it was rational for either side to claim certainties. It turned out that you wanted a certainty to start with before you would answer the question, and claimed that this was a problem with my scenario. The only problem is with reality: There are no certainties. As for your faith that there will, one day, be an acceptable theory for abiogenesis, that is of course a rational personal choice.
In fact the more plausible scenario I suggested would have less certainties than the one you outlined.
If you think there are no certainties in life try missing a mortgage payment.
If my faith in the unending curiosity of human beings (being based on constant observation of other human beings) makes you think I have "Faith" in the supernatural, you are mistaken.
since this can only mean we have to look for a cause for the abiogenesis of our sky daddy, it only shifts the problem elsewhere and makes it an even larger problem.
This is not a valid scientific position. A conclusion that there is alien intelligence (for the origin of life, or nanobots) is not contingent on knowing the origin of that alien intelligence. That is a quite different question.
I think you missed my point entirely.
No, my assertion is supported by the fact that the moon is entirely inhospitable to life, I have conceded the existance of artificial life would be evidence of little green men.
So you're agreeing that non organic life is possible on the moon (my nanobots), and you agree evolution is possible in any form of life, but that it would have been impossible for that (nanobot) life to have started spontaneously?
Yes (artificial life that is), yes (evolution being used in the scientific sense of course), yes, by definition due to it's artificiality.
I am sure you could purchase the services of a 'scientist' with a purchased degree from some dodgy religious university would make whatever wild claim you wanted.
I'm not sure what 'wild claim' you're referring to. I presented a hypothetical scenario which, whilst unlikely, is not impossible, and simply asked a coupla simple questions which have been carefully ignored. Ah well.
The wild claim that artificial life can start spontaneously. I don't think I have ignored any of your questions, just defined the conditions before giving an answer.