In response to Kevy. No problem, but do please post your comment in a thread relating to your topic and I am sure you will get a very good discussion.
Ok sorry to keep you waiting xphobe
There is a difference between being able in principle to prove something right or wrong, and being able to do it at the present time, with the tools at hand. For example, before 1959, if you had said there are huge cities on the far side of the Moon, we would have had to say "Well, it's doubtful but we don't know because we have no way to see it. Then after the Soviets launched Luna 3, we could say "No" with confidence because we had been there.
Abiogenesis is a different situation, and it's not just because of the tools we have currently. I don't think we'll ever be able to prove that abiogenesis can't happen anywhere, any time. It's like trying to disprove the existence of any gods. Can't prove a negative.
On the other hand, to prove abiogenesis, we only have to make it happen once. Again, same with a god. Except the process of abiogenesis would be a natural event, which we could observe. Gods are supposed to be supernatural, so we would have no idea what we were observing, if anything.
I disagree with you there, abiogenesis is not a different situation. All we would have to do is, like Deus just said, prove that one component for life could not have been present and the idea is lost to the graveyard of dead scientific ideas (my analogy to world being flat is in that same graveyard)
I do however agree with you on your next statement. A lot different than proving God. Much easier in some respects because we know what we are observing, like you just said. Its extremely hard to "put god in a box" as some might say.
Sorry, you've added an incorrect rider to Answer #2. Aliens are not supernatural. And again (I'm repeating myself) even if we knew that aliens brought life here, we'd still be left with the question of how the alien life itself got started on their planet, and so on.
Also, Answer 3 = "unknown source" can not be an option. You can't propose "I don't know" as an answer to any question.
If you want to propose a supernatural being, that's cool. But you have to have some evidence... any evidence at all... You can't just say "Well it seems lots more likely to me".
Ok switch unknown to undiscovered source. Why cant I propose I dont know? I am simply saying there could be any number of plausable ideas out there yet. I dont like being roped into just two. Its almost like we are limited at what we now believe. What were naturalists supposed to believe before darwin? Then there was darwin, new idea, new research, and a better possibility. Dont you think there could be another undiscovered idea that could explain the begining of life? I suppose no since you argue strongly for abiogenesis.
And no I dont want to propose anything. I just want to look at the evidence for and against abiogenesis. So far all I see is (and if there is more research I would gladly like to see it) an unproven idea. No early replicator, no early competative molecule, no early cell. So in my mind then, abiogenesis is suspect. ??? Not that its not at all impossible, but where we are now? I havent seen "the light" yet I guess. If abiogenesis is still up in the air that leaves the possibility of anything not disproven yet. So, I guess to some people that indeed would include the supernatural.
My question to you becomes the same one you asked me earlier. If there was peer reviewed proof that abiogenesis was not possible would you believe it?
In response to Deus
It is indeed a facinating subject. It will be interesting to see what in brought out of this research in the future. I just havent jumped on the wagon yet and dont intend to until somethings are proven. I think many people have because it fits so well with the naturalist view.