>JohnnyBoy: “And yet not a single reference to any of them shows up in wikipedia.”
>You’re kidding, right?
Not a single reference to any success in creating life from nonliving matter. The last big push on the subject was in the 70s. Since they just multiple theories with no actual results and everyone told that it’s true without the slightest bit of evidence.
Almost every study since the 70s has been about finding this organic particle here or there and speculation that this particle might have been created in way X that might have led to life. However, no further progress in creating life has been achieved in the lab and it’s in the lab that Abiogenesis should be proven. All that’s required is taking nonlife and turning it into life and bamn Abiogenesis is largely proven.
Since there’s no longer any large scale experimentation going to create life in the lab and the papers published are generally of the type of: Well we know Abiogenesis is true and here’s how it might have worked, I have to conclude other than Abiogenesis isn’t science, rather it’s dogma.
Of course not, we're talking about a hypothesis, one of several, about how life may have originated on Earth.
JohnnyBoy: "The last big push on the subject was in the 70s.
Since they just multiple theories with no actual results and everyone told that it’s true without the slightest bit of evidence."
In fact, work has continued to this day, as the references and bibliography in the link from my posts #100 and #129 demonstrate.
But nobody claims to have created life in a test-tube, merely to better understand some processes which could.
JohnnyBoy: "However, no further progress in creating life has been achieved in the lab and it’s in the lab that Abiogenesis should be proven."
To my knowledge there was never any "progress in creating life", ever, period.
So you've been doing a ferocious battle, full of sturm & drang, against a straw man.
Why?
JohnnyBoy: " 'Well we know Abiogenesis is true and here’s how it might have worked,' I have to conclude other than Abiogenesis isn’t science, rather it’s dogma."
Abiogenesis is a weakly confirmed hypothesis, nothing more.
So why do you lie about it?