The theory comes in when making a hypothesis on how abiogenesis could have worked. There are theories on abiogenesis.
Oh, so we aren't talking about the word "theory" as scientists do. OK.
But remember, to a scientist there is a
huge difference between the word "theory" and "hypothesis". You are apaprently using theory as the "common" term, not technically.
Sorry. I'm a scientist so when people abuse the term in a science discussion I am prone to err on the side of the
actual scientific definition.
Regardless, it is considered in evolutionary thinking that it is the best explanation and is discussed as probability as yet unproven.
Correct. The point being that it is
more likely than an explanation that includes unverifiable supernatural beings.
That's all it says. It doesn't say "god doesn't exist", it doesn't say anything other than:
1. You have all this evidence
2. Using this evidence how did this likely come about without including
unevidenced factors.
Which is what supports my agrument. This is what is being taught, whether proven or not.
Would you prefer that when discussed in classes the issue mention
unevidenced items as well? That will lead to many unpleasant ramifications regardless. It will open the doors to include anything and everything (including the unevidence role of leprechuans and unicorns).
I don't say that to be flippant or rude about religion. The fact is, religion must
prove the validity of their hypothesized factor (GOD) within some degree of certainty before he can be invoked in the mechanism. OR at the very least provide sufficient evidence that the model will work better with this "God Factor" than without.
That's it! It doesn't say anything about God's existence or lack thereof.
Think of it like a sporting event or a game. In soccer as a player on the field I cannot use my hands. That does not mean that my hands disappear, it merely means that the rules make the game work by establishing a common baseline. If you want to play soccer as field player and use your hands you are no longer playing soccer.
If you want to play chess and have the knight be able to fly over the board and land wherever he wants to, then you are no longer playing chess.
These are the rules. They are not, as many may wish to think, arbitrary and "anti-god". They are merely that you are limited to working within a framework of liklihood. If you have reason to believe that there are "other factors" you don't know about, you cannot just then "make up" what those factors are and expect them to be accepted without an exceptional reason for doing so. It is far better to provide some evidence for those factors and how the
inclusion of those unseen factors works better than the model without them.
There are cases in science where the model just lacks somethign to make it work. There are cases where things have to be done that don't make a lot of sense, but make the numbers work better. In the present case if you feel that abiogenesis has some significant lack you may hypothesize "god" but your mere incredulity around the chemistry is insufficient to make that hypothesis compelling to others.
In the current case, since abiogenesis is, technically speaking,
NOT a
theory, it is still a suite of hypotheses being tested. So it is really not possible at this time to make the claim that the model
with God is superior than the model
without God.
If you include God you are then will likely have to further "model" God. In order to be useful to
science that model must help us explain why God does what he does and perhaps even how. It might even provide some predictive capacity (cf "Prayer studies").
So you are telling me it is okay for abiogenesis to be discussed as a probability for life on earth and being presented as such without evidence
Well, there does appear to be some evidence for the factors known. The Miller-Urey experiments and others are pointing up the wholly abiogenic formation of the
building blocks of life. The missing piece right now is the building blocks --> life aspect. That is under investigation.
It is OK to discuss this in colleges. It is not presented as hard known fact yet --to my knowledge-- (unless the teacher is incompetent). Science tends to be very careful about teaching information. That is why it is important to know the difference between words like
hypothesis and
theory.
; yet it is not okay for God to be an explanation without evidence.
Well, to be fair, the discussion and inclusion of God has been ongoing since time immemorial. To that end to my knowledge the concept of God is as "fractured" across human knowledge as anything I can think of. If there is a God it is incumbent upon the believers to make a case for a single conception of God that can be made compelling to the "unbeliever".
It can be shown that God has an argument equally as supportive as the one you used above.
I don't see that. Which God? Yahweh? Aharu Mazda? Al'lah? Krishna? What mechanism? But most importantly:
what is missing from the hypothesized model that would necessitate God's role?
Only if you must remain in a naturalistic mindset.
I am unaware of non-natural processes. If you could point me in the direction of proven supernatural or non-natural processes I would be most interested.
That is only your opinion and really can be viewed as support for your pet hypothesis.
Indeed. However I have yet to see a preferable "non-natural" hypothesis that explains the points with more compelling rationale than the natural hypothesis.
No more than you are going to have to prove yours.
Well, again, I have provided (as have other posters on here) all the evidence we currently have. The fact remains that there are mechanisms by which these building blocks can be
abiogenically formed, even to the point of primative proto cell-walls. There are numerous catalytic surfaces in nature and even "energy economies" within chemistry that could act as proto-biological systems.
The jump from non-living to living may be much shorter of a leap than we expect. Considering that all life is made up of non-living elements.
To my knowledge there is no "divine spark" in life that is necessary to explain life. Unless you wish to point to the difference between "life" in bacteria and "life" in humans and how there is some quantum difference in the "ineffible" factor of "life".
Again, it is incumbent upon you to provide reason for the
inclusion of an extra factor.
I've got all
my factors together and they are verifiable. The question comes in what is the last step?
Your inclusion of the God factor means you have to tell me why this inclusion makes the model
better rather than just a hand-waiving exercise to wipe away the last set of questions.
Show how Darwin was disproved by his own peers. As far as the sun revolving around the earth, that was Christian Church Dogma. Maybe you want to bring that back along with Flood Geology. You don't even care that your LCW website sources lie to you. So much for what Jesus preached. To quote a popular phrase here, "Closing your eyes and and tapping your heals together will not erase the facts." 
