I see... So you'd be safe pledging to send me $1000 for every research paper I can cite which finds evidence for the biochemical sources of the earliest life forms?
I mean, you've asserted three times in one post that there is "no" such evidence, so your money should be safe.
Just for the sake of discussion, go ahead and make such a pledge, and then I'll be glad to respond.
Conversely, perhaps you could admit that you're just posting your *presumptions* about whether or not such evidence exists, and that you're posting assertions you aren't actually qualified to make.
Do you find this to be an effective debating technique? Because I don't. This isn't a question of who has the bigger testicles, or who is willing to pony up the most cash on an anonymous on-line board. You can't bully me into agreeing with you
I'm familiar with the arguments -- I've read the relevant literature, although if you'd like to supply more, I'd be happy to read it -- and I continue to believe that there is no evidence to suggest that life came into being through a natural process. That isn't to suggest that it didn't or couldn't happen, but that there isn't evidence to suggest that it did happen. I know that incredibly complex viruses exist. I know that amino acid synthesis happens naturally. But saying that something could happen and did happen are two different things, and scientists investigating the possibility of abiogenesis have not proved that it is even possible.