Paul wrote:
Well let's see...Hmmm? Total misrepresentation...I never said they could be reproduced...I said observed and demonstrated...and I never said these two unrelated examples could be demonstrated in a lab...these are huge assumptions I never said.
Your objection to abiogenesis is that it cannot be "observed and demonstrated". You can do neither with many other long term processes that you accept yourself, and you don't even understand the range of evidence and progress in abiogenesis research.
I can observe Pluto revolving around the Sun and thus it can be demonstrated (others who look into a good telescope can confirm this)...
No one has observed Pluto orbit the Sun because one orbit takes 250 years. Pluto was only discovered in 1930.
We know that Pluto orbits the Sun due to observations of part of the process, and reasonable conjecture on what those data might mean when extrapolated to longer times.
and we observe and have demonstrated certain geological evidences that mountains (not all) have indeed risen...this can be seen (thus observed and demonstrated to) by all who have the time to comb though all the evidences of this case...
No one has observed a mountain form because mountain formation takes millions of years. People don't live millions of years.
We know that mountains form by geologic processes due to observations of part of the process, and reasonable conjecture on what those data might mean when extrapolated to longer times.
Now, compare this (and pluto) to abiogenesis:
No one has observed life arise because all plausible routes take many years. Research into abiogenesis has only been going on since the 1940's.
We know there are many possible routes to the formation of life due to observations of parts of the process, and reasonable conjecture on what those data might mean when extrapolated to longer times.
Even 15 years ago, there had already been significant work:
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 1998
and since then there has been a steady march of further advances, such as this one:
Harvard Team Creates the World's 1st Synthesized Cells
Those who study the chemistry of the formation of life have proposed a number of plausible routes, and have repeatable evidence for several of them. You are ignorant of most of this because it is not your career, and to even be familiar with the evidence would require you to have a degree in biochemistry as well as years of study in the abiogenesis subfield.
My point is not that we know life arose without God's help. Rather, my point is that your basic argument -
that your ignorance of a field somehow makes you think that you can dismiss any process that cannot be observed in its entirety - is not a reasonable arguement, and that using it only makes you look like you don't understand evidence.
Papias