Is Abiogenesis a fact?

This is something that everyone here can agree with.There was a time when there was no life on earth. It arose from inorganic matter. We all agree.There are some minor difficulties with getting agreement on the details. One group says that a God took dust and made it alive -- no details are given as to how this occured.Another group says that life arose as a combination of inorgainic chemicals --- very limited details are hypothesized.One side knows it doesn't know the details; the other seems convinced it does but has never offered any.

It also seems strange to talk about "forces are constants". I can't figure out what that means.

Thank you for sticking to the topic. Individual suspensions next time.

Lex, the chemists who do research into abiogenesis are perfectly aware of the "laws" of physics and chemistry. The research involves finding routes whereby chemicals can be organized into something that we can call primitive "life".This is NOT precluded by any laws of physics or chemistry. What IS precluded are many different routes. The reseach is to find ways that could have happened.You have stated over and over that the "laws" preclude ALL paths from non-living chemistry to living chemistry. There is no reason to believe you are correct AT ALL. When you start supplying some reasons then you will have said something actually meaningful. You have not yet.

But surely that is silly isn't it? We all agree, don't we?, that a genesis of some sort took place. The real argument (and someone suggested reserving the term "abiogeneis" for a regular chemical explanation for first life rising) is whether life can arise through normal chemical means.Of course Lex isn't making any useful statments. He is, in what he thinks is a clever way, saying "It can't happen." Not a shred of reasoning to support that though.

Of course the laws of physics pose a "problem" for abiogenesis. That is why it takes research to figure out how, within those laws, abiogenesis could take place. Is that all you're saying?Now what the heck are "behavioral limitations"? There hasn't been any "logic and reasoning" that I see: just a statement that physics is a "problem".Lex, life as we see it is just complex chemistry. We are digging deeper and deeper into how it all works and it is chemisty, chemistry and more chemistry. That it arose from less complex chemistry is the hypothosis.There is NOTHING in the laws of physics (as you say "this doesn’t render the transformation impossible") that stops the chemistry from crossing whatever non-life to life boundry we define but you are totally correct that we do NOT understand how this occured. Not right now anyway.