[sauron]

You are totally full of it. Organic molecules are so efficiently scavenged by soil and water microflora, that newly happening abiogenesis would never have a chance.

Sniff...It just doesn't seem fair.

You mean...you guys get to believe in a theory--abiogenic evolution--that cannot be proven, even by your own standards?

Sauron

[sauron]

You effectively leave us NO MEANS TO REFUTE IT, do you?

Isn't one of the hallmarks of a theory the ability to prove it falsifiable?

Isn't it?

Sauron

[Virginia-American]

You mean...you guys get to believe in a theory--abiogenic evolution--that cannot be proven, even by your own standards?

Huh? All Fur Ball and I were saying was that the chemical reactions that preceded life cannot occur in the modern environment, one reason being the existence of bacteria that would eat the chemicals before they had time to engage in further reactions. Another reason is the presence of O₂

This says nothing at all about setting up experiments to test various aspects of abiogenetic hypotheses.

... theory that cannot be proven ...

Huh? again. As you should know from these crevo threads, theories are never proven; they are confirmed (or falsified) by evidence, but proof (in the logical/mathematical sense) is not possible; science is more like law in this respect, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is the best we can do.

PS: The relation between validity (of an argument) and truth (of a proposition) is "logical independence" not "mutual exclusion". [GIGO]

[furball4paws]

"You mean...you guys get to believe in a theory--abiogenic evolution--that cannot be proven, even by your own standards?"

Sigh, this is so wrong it's not even wrong - what a waste of electrons. :(