Is Abiogenesis a fact?

I think we can safely say that there was a time when there was no life. From that no life, sprang life. As stated earlier it could be theogenesis or xenogenesis but ultimately it is always abiogenesis. So yes, I'll go with abiogenesis being a fact, however there is no explanation for it, so no 'theory', just a few varying hypotheses.

I was posting a reply to you, but it turned out to be nearly identical to my own Message 7 in this post It's an area of potential equivocation that everyone should be vigilant of. Abiogenesis is often discussed as a natural process of life coming from non-life. Contrasted with theo- and xeno- genesis. In the light of this thread, all genesis' variants are abiogenesis. Indeed, ALL geneses are abiogenesis. That kind of takes away somewhat from the point of having the word abiogenesis except when contrasting with biogenesis.On the one hand you are dead right, but abiogenesis can be used to mean different things, and it serves as a convenient label for the non supernatural/alien formation of life. A more accurate name for it might be atheogenesis. However, the problem remains that this could include xenogenesis - using the a- prefix when there are more than two options is problematic. So we need a positive word for natural genesis of life. How about physikagenesis? A bit clumsy I supposeI guess we are stuck with the nomenclature that others use.

You mean, science can disprove special creation by demonstrating an example of special creation? Sounds a bit backwards. Surely to demonstrate abiogenesis we just have to find realistic pre-earth conditions that can result in the formation of replicators with a form of heredity. The only alternative of course, is that life has always existed. If you have converted the Abrahamic God, you believe that life came from non-life (clay, for example).

Only if you eat fat and sugar alone (edit: ie., you only eat carbohydrates). Most people need to eat proteins as well and drink water constantly. Guess what we are made of? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

When you hear somebody saying that they have proved spontaneous generation or abiotic genesis (abe: in the sense of organic chemicals naturally coming together on earth to form the first forms of replicators/life etc)...then you can use that argument. Until such time, why bother?If I show you a cake, what do you assume happened? That the cake had always existed, or that the cake came from non-cake? I didn't talk about the origin of God, so your argument seems superfluous as well as debatable (and being debated in another thread). I merely said that in the Abrahamic story, God took non-life and made it into life. If you believe that is true then you do not agree with the title 'Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable'. You actually believe it to be true, and thus (I assume) reasonable.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yes - if you look at Message 241 I said the alternative was that life has always existed. However, I'm not sure it is theologically sound to consider God as being 'biological'. I would say God is abiological.In this case it would be theogenesis (?) Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.