shmogie
Well-Known Member
Oh yes I understand, but you don't. There is only speculation not one piece of evidence that supports abiogenesis. There is no evidence to show how the process worked, no evidence to show what and how the alleged first organism functioned, no fossil remains, no observation, no reproduction of the process, nada. I am not sure who we is in your statement, but you are correct, you nor anyone else has figured it out completely, partially, or at all. Prove me wrong, if you can. BTW, I went back and looked at the thread that I didn't see before, went through the whole thing, it confirmed what I said aboveThus illustrating the folly of thinking "If I don't see it, it must not exist".
You've only named one creationist book. You also said you read the scientific journals relevant to origins research. So again....which ones?
So you really do believe there are two fundamental types of chemistry.....non-random and random. Where in the world did you get such an idea?
Are you moving the goalposts here? Remember, this started with you claiming that there was not one single bit of evidence for abiogenesis. But now you're demanding something else entirely, i.e., a full-blown explanation for an entire A-Z scenario.
See, in the world of those who don't think in black/white terms, there is quite a bit of grey area between "zero evidence" and "fully explained". Specific to origins, we have a handful of hypotheses, each with their own set of supporting evidences. But no one is claiming that we have it all figured out and it's settled science. That's why it's still an active area of research. If we had it figured out, there wouldn't be any more to do.
Yep, if there is no known chemicals, no known process, no known environment, and everything came together to create the first organism accidentally by chance you nor anyone else knows what laws of chemistry or anything else applied. I don't have to account to what I have read, I frankly, no a whole lot more about abiogenesis than you. There is no evidence, other than pure speculation that it occurred. I was giving you the opportunity to dazzle me with the evidence that you claim exists. I am demanding nothing, I know you can't produce it, you dodged the issue admirably. Produce the hypotheses, you are right, there are a few, but the evidence you allege exists to support them, not there.
So do you understand? Yes, there is evidence for a natural origin of life, but no we haven't figured it completely out either.