I personally find it adequate and all your objections totally irrelevant.
Ow, okay.... So you "believe it" and that's enough for you.
It doesn't matter to you at all that you might be wrong. You are just content with having your beliefs and holding on to them, no matter what anyone else says?
Seeing as your claim was that we MUST observe things before we can know them, it seems to me to be very relevant to show that such a claim is simply not correct.
We are talking about human expectations based on observation of patterns.
No, YOU are. I'm showing you that observation of a thing isn't always necessary to know that the thing happens.
There is no need to know physics and mathematics uinvolved to develop such an expectation. The Pluto example is also a false analogy. Pluto is detectable. Abiogenesis is not.
The orbit of Pluto is unobserved. But we know exactly how long it takes.
Black holes were unobserved and undetected, but we knew they existed, given our knowledge about relativity etc.
Life is observable and we know that it wasn't always present.
Therefor..... (fill in the blanks).
So if life were reproducing via abiogenesis that would tell me nothing about the origins of life? LOL!
Is that why they are struggling to make it happen-because it will tell them nothing about X or of life coming only from life?
That's ridiculous!
Now, you've stopped making sense altogether.
Existing life producing life does not tell you how original life came into being.
How can you not comprehend that?
You sound as if not having any observable data means that something is likely to exist.
No, that's not at all what I said.
I said that not observing something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or can't happen.
False analogy: Black holes indicated their presence via gravitational effects.
Black holes where predicted long before any such gravitational effects were observed.
In contrast abiogenesis doesn't leave any observable effect
The effect of the origins of life are existing living things.....
They came from somewhere. They came into being in some way.
Unless you wish to assert an infinite string of life creating life without an original life form that didn't come from another living thing.
My inductive leap is justified. What isn't justified is calling something an event when you have absolutely no evidence to call it an event. Now THAT is BLIND FAITH.
Life doesn't exist.
Then life exists.
Somewhere between those two states, life came into being from non-life in some way.
I never claimed that observing X necessarily reveals anything about Y.
You've been doing nothing but that for the last couple of posts.
You've consistently pointed to existing life producing other life to claim that life can't come from non-life.
Life reproducing and life coming into being are two different things.
There is no event of abiogenesis to argue about except in your imagination. That's what the argument is about.
So, life never originated? It always existed?
Do you understand the difference between biogenesis and abiogenesis?
The only reason you IMAGINE that I am afraid is because you IMAGINE that I am approaching this subject from a religious point of view.
Aren't you?
Let's test that...
In your opinion / belief... how did life originate?
Did it originate?
Actually, I have reason to suspect that YOU are the one who is actually terrified to contemplate what life coming only from life
How have you concluded that life ONLY comes from other life?
Reminder: if you are going to answer that by saying that you only have examples of life coming from life, then you are making an argument from ignorance.
might reveal because you can't seem to fathom that original life as anything other than God or a god.
I'm not the one who is arbitrarily excluding ways by which life came into existence.
I'm open to the possibility it was a god. I'm also open to the possibility that it were extra-dimensional aliens or a natural process.
But I'm not willing to form a conclusion before asking and investigating the question. I'm also not willing to tie myself to a particular conclusion without evidence.
As it stands, I consider a natural process to be a lot more likely then the almost infinite amount of other possibilities, quite simply because a natural process doesn't require me to assume the existence of additional, unsupported, entities.
Furthermore, not a single thing that was once claimed to be caused by gods turned out to actually be caused by gods. From lightning to the tides to the origins of species, planets, stars, etc.
So I consider it a lot more likely that when the answer is finally found, the answer will be some type of natural process, sure.
You seem to exclude that possibility up front. And you can't seem to give a proper reason why, except an argument from ignorance.
You see, I'm not limited in that peculiar way.
The opposite seems true.
Suppose life were presently clearly arising only via abiogenesis you would take that as evidence that life arises only via abiogenesis.
No. That would be making the same fallacious mistake in the opposite direction.
Again, appealing to the set of examples of X, does not exclude Y. It's an argument of ignorance to do so.
In that case you would consider those who suggested it arose from previous life, a process nver observed once, and never forced to happen in a la, you would tag the research as ubnnecessary and ridiculous.
In this case, nobody would ask that question, because if all known life comes about via abiogenesis, then every new living thing forms a "fresh start".
The reason why we ask the question about the origin of life, is because we can't have an infinite string life living things producing other living things into the past.
This string of life producing life had a beginning. The question is about that beginning.
If we would only have examples of abiogenesis, there would be no such string. Every new living thing would have its own beginning and there would be no question of origins. As every life form would have its own origins. Furthermore, we wouldn't even be here to ask the question, as evolution requires heredity of traits through imperfect replication. Which you don't have if things don't replicate but have "fresh starts" all the time.
So that was a rather silly "hypothetical".
No.
It requires a couple of working braincells.
I support it with a pattern in nature.
The question of abiogenesis is about asking where that pattern came from.
BTW
Your problem is that you want to bring religion and deities, goddesses, gods into this when religion and deitihave nothing to do with it.
Que?
Read the thread title.
