For abiogenesis, the evidence is extemely weak. The evidence show it is hard to do even though somehow it happened at least two times in a very narrow window in Earth's history. It is clearly your belief system that counts here. You have no "evidence" for abiogenesis, only a series of speculations that get ruled out in the lab a year or two after they get proposed.
Proposing that because there is an element of unavoidably subjective evaluation of the strength of any given set of evidence does suddenly throw the election into default. We like naturalistic evolutionary explanations because of their track record so far,
An "element" of subjectivity my big toe, on this issue the subjective far outwieghs any positive evidence on either side - every honest reader of this forum knows it. I can't make God appear on command in your lab (absurdly high hurdle to jump in the name of 'positive evidence') to make a new cell, and you can't make nature or the lab do it. And even if God did that one time in front of a dozen Noble Prize winners you still would not count it unless He did it on command every time for donh in a repeatable fashion.
Sorry, our ID hypothesis is that the creation of new life ended after the creation of Man. We are the ones saying it won't happen again, you are the ones saying it will happen again in a repeatable fashion every time conditions are right. You can't repeat it, or even peat it, but somehow evolution 'has a better track record' than ID.
All this and the failure of creationists or IDers to provide a definitive countervailing example. The instant you guys come up with something definitive, it will become part of science--
At the start of this thread you were saying we had to make supporting predictions for ID that could be tested and still panned out. I made some and you started raising the bar by throwing in vague and subjective demands. What is your definition of 'something definitive?' Does God have to come to your lab and perform tricks as in the example I cited above? Why can't we be held to the same standard you want for yourself, making testable predictions and seeing how well they fit the FACTS?
just taking potshots at our feeble attempts to explain Everything given the tiny amount of data we have isn't going to do the trick until you have an explanatory paradigm that works better--make that works at all--which you presently have not got.
Feeble attempts? Feeble attempts? This from a man who can pack code better than God? Maybe your explanations are so feeble because they are just plain wrong. The 'tiny amount of data' argument loses merit when the more we learn the less likely abiogenensis becomes. It would work if we were slowly understanding how it could be done, but we are quickly learning that it is more difficult than we thought.
Oh, yea, vague and subjective demands, like--the experiment has to be affordable, has to be observable, has to produce results better explained outside the current paradigm than in it.
In other words: has to follow the same rules the rest of us plodding scientific types have to follow in order to be published. Current scientific paradigms are not cast in concrete, however, overthrowing a currently usefully employed scientific paradigm requires more than aggressive rhetoric in an appeal to "fairness". Rightly or wrongly, we have a big investment in our current paradigm. This might strike you as an unfair prejudice, but it strikes most scientific workers as the only alternative to intellectual anarchy, and an end to scientific progress.
For abiogenesis, the evidence is extemely weak.
...and, correspondingly, abiogenesis is not a science. RNA-world may arguably be a science a-borning, with the change in the Tree of Life brought on by Woese's work. However, how RNA-world came to exist, and whether even that would constitute abiogenesis, still stands well beyond the realm of present day science.