I explained to Rho that enough information exists about alchemy for us to know that it is invalid. The same is not true of abiogenesis - this should be hugely obvious.
Since they're the same in quality, naked assertions to the contrary don't do alot for me.
abiogenesis is the best scientific theory out there for the origins of life.
Then so much the worse for science.
Here's another example where a claim to supernatural activity exists and the scientific evidence points the other direction but G-man has the gall to say that abiogenesis is the best "scientific" explanation. Cracks me up.
Spontaneous generation is bunk - wasn't that disproven in the 19th century?
No one has ever observed life arising from non-life in a natural environment.
No one has even been able to get close to creating life in a closely-manipulated lab environment with intelligent design all over the place.
They speak out of both sides of their mouths - sometimes life is extraordinary, beautiful, wonderful, awesome, complex... but when it comes to being pressed about their alchemic beliefs about abiogenesis, they say "Well, we've caused some amino acids to come together in a lab environment!"
That doesn't even begin to suggest that we have enough information about the early earth to invalidate abiogenesis.
You'd better hope so b/c the early earth environment as it's usually thought of is hostile to life's forming out of non-life and hostile to terran life in general.
Alchemy: we know it is invalid.
Abiogenesis: We can't know that it is invalid yet. See? Drop the analogy.
Since abiogenesis IS alchemy, why should I?
'Life' is just a word humans use to communicate.
Retreating to "it's just semantics!" is often an abandonment of the original field of argument. White flag acknowledged.
To say metaphysics - rather than science - has the answer is incorrect.
Which I never claimed - I don't know where you got that.