Is Abiogenesis a fact?

Assuming you agree that in the past there was a point in time where there was no life on earth and that there is life on earth now, there are two possibilities for the emergence of life on earth.1) Abiogenesis
2) Extraterrestrial InterferenceExtraterrestrial includes God, intellegent aliens, a comet infected with life, etc.Excluding something extraterrestrial, is there any other way life could have arrose besides abiogenesis? Well that is a little extreme IMO. The very first life forms were presumably very simple. Probably something we could hardly call 'life', just some simple replicators or something. We know that cells are made of atoms and that very simple life is basically just chemical interactions. If the chemicals needed for the first replicators were present in the early days of the earth, why don't you think they could have formed something that could be considered life, by definition?Forming a worm from a stone isn't even in the same ballpark. His experiments didn't disprove abiogenesis, contrary to misunderstood oppinions on them. They were a lot different than the 'life' that abiogensis talks about and the conditions of the early planet that led to abiogensis.

Well it wasn't a statement it was a question. A 'why do you think' question. If you want to apply logic then I'll apply logic. Your answer to the question is a logical fallacy. Your saying that because scientists have not been able to do it then it is impossible. You are arguing from personal incredulity.But I understand what you are getting at and why you think it. It is a fine opinion.I think that if you educated yourself in this area, about the early conditions of the planet and the requirements for the simplist life forms (replication and heredidty) then your incredulity will decline. It isn't all that improbable as you seem to think. Heck, it might even be inevitable. Huh? What do you mean? That and they are just plain wrong. Ok, but if a dog has an atom of calcium in his bone that used to be in a rock, then that living matter in the dog came from the rock and life has come from non-life....just not in the sense of the origin of life. Its not like the dogs cells break down the calcium past the atomic level and then re-engineer it back into calcium into its bone. The calcium stays as calcium and it came from the rock before it was in the dog.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

and your argument is from personal incredulity, a logical fallacy. IMHO, that's fine...you don't have to have a logical argument for your personal beliefs. Yes, the bible definately has life comming from non-life. How about...creation. The theory of abiogenesis conforms to your equation. It is your incredulity that has lead you to your belief. Again, I ask why don't you think that abiogenesis is possible other than scientist have not been able to duplicate it (yet)? You should leave you opinion on abiogenesis to 'I don't know' rather than it is unresonable and not let your incredulity determine your position.

Well, there it is.I think the equations do work.Have you read any evidence that they don't work or are you basing this on your lack of evidence that they do?Have you read much about the theory of abiogenesis?If your basing it on a lack of evidence then you should educate yourself on the subject and reform your opinion.The first life forms were extremely simple, not much different than non-living chemical reactions, so I don't see it as that big of a leap when they become 'alive'.

Yes. Yes, and they won't even have to say "presto". Give them time.

---

Now, how about you answer my questions good sir.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

Like I said, you should just read up on the subject. I think you will find that life from non-life is not all that unreasonable. I totally agree. But I'll point out that nothing can preclude the hands of a DIVINE MAKER. Even if we know every instant of the past and how everything came to be, it still doesn't mean that god isn't behind it all. But it also happened without any intellegence at all (although I realise you don't believe this). I think ID is a crock of shit, no offense. At least from a scientific point of view.A lot of processes that seem to require intellegence turn out to require no intellegence at all. Its more amazing to me that they don't. I don't find it necessary to include a designer and I don't see science as challenging my faith whatsoever. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. You've probably read some dishonest anti-science literature (perhaps AiG or something).Take it from me, someone who is on your side and the other side, that science is no threat to faith. There's no apologetics needed when science discovers that life can come from non-life, or that man evolved from simpler primates. It doesn't take anything away from GOD. (although sometimes it does point out the fallacies in the Bible.)