Is Abiogenesis a fact?

Do you agree that life now exists?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It makes it easier to know if you have responded if you use the LGRB that is located at the lower right of the message you aare replying to.So you agree that life now exists, correct?If so, do you also agree that the evidence available seems to show that at one time life did not exist on earth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

LGRB = little green reply button located in the lower right of each message. If you use that it links your reply to the message so that others can follow a conversation.Short summary:So far you agree that life does exist now and that at one time in the distant past life did not exist on earth.At that time, before life on earth existed, is there evidence that non-living matter existed?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, the field of abiogenesis is difficult. One would expect that. But that also has little to do with this thread. Right now we are only talking about the earth.The questions are

1. Does life exist on earth now?
2. Does the evidence show that there was a time when life did not exist on earth?
3. Does the evidence show that non-living matter existed on earth before life on earth existed?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Okay, you have answered yes to the first two but: has nothing to do with the question I asked.The third question asked so far was"3. Does the evidence show that non-living matter existed on earth before life on earth existed?"Still need your answer to that one.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar asked if non-living matter existed before there was living matter on the earth to which Lex replied: Is there evidence that hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and even more complex things like rock existed before there was life on earth?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry but that has nothing to do with what I asked. The current question is:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Close. The problem is there is no way to test or verify something that is supernatural. If it could be observed and tested then it would no longer be supernatural.Once God is verifiable, observable and testable, then Science can consider it. But will it be God?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Refering to insurance, Having grown up in an insurance family and having be the youngest person in the State of Maryland to ever get his Brokers License, I may be able to point out some things in this area.The Insurance industry is very conservative, and terms that have by use garnered a specific meaning are often retained. I remember that as late as the 1960 at least there were also exceptions in Marine Insurance excluding the "Acts of Kings and Princes of whatsoever quality".The key is that many of the proposals of different ID groups simply lead to stagnation and a dead end. That includes the idea of a Designer. Until some specific and repeatable test that can be used by anyone with access to the testing equipment or that can reliably produce the same results regardless of the tester and indipendent of any analysis of the results, any speculation of the designer is a wast of effort. When such a test is developed, then it will become reasonable to consider the question, but until then ID belongs in the realm of sciFi.Another proposal that has been made by some ID supporters is that past may change, may not be static. Again, this is something that needs to be pushed off into the realm of SciFi. If someday a test method might be developed that could show that the past has changed and exactly what the change was, then it would still be worthless spending time considering it. By its very nature, the theory will still be useless.Consider.If the idea that the past is changeable is true, then the results of any test of the idea cannot be trusted. Under the conditions of the theory the results we have may not be the results we really got.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And that is the problem. The results that you SHOULD be looking for are whatever you get. You do not specify results beyond the statement stage, "If this is true I should see (list of specifics).So far ID has never been able to make such a statement.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry but you totally lost me there. There most definitely are predictions in archeology, forensics, cryptology, etc... You predict what it is you will observe. If an archelogical site was really occuppied during a given period by a given peoples we should see similarities with other sites from the same peoples and same era.My experince of the ID folk is that they never get to the specifics. They never get to the specifics of what should be seen if ID is true. Until they can come up with something that would differentiate ID from the current evolutionary theory ID is pretty much a pointless waste of time.Edited by jar, : added requisite spalling arrers

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Because prediction is the test of the hypothesis.If ID wants to be considered science it must move beyond wilfull inference.You cannot look at a sample and infer design of some entity until you can define how Design would be different than common descent. Looking at the same evidence and just picking your inference is called speculation, SciFi.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry and I will not intrude on you good folk for long, but to think that life did not come from non-life is not just unreasonable, it is illogical.There is ample evidence that there was a time when life did not exist on earth.There is ample evidence that life now exists on earth.So, anyone who hints or suggests that life did not come from non-life has to provide the model that shows some other source for life.There was a time when there was only non-life.Later there was life and non-life.If life did not come from the non-life, just what DID it come from.As a Christian I am tired of other Christians coming here and making such stupid statements as "Life from Non-Life is Not Reasonable". All it accomplishes is to make Christians look stupid and foolish.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion