Not only is there plenty of science showing life from non life, here's some more, but everything points towards life having to come from non-life, as Ricter mentions. You responded with Origin of Species to Ricter when he was talking about origin of life. You think that's douchey because you didn't know Origin of Species is not about origin of life. Why not just admit it, and stop speaking as a child, understanding as a child, thinking as a child, and typing like one. Learn and move on for once.
your article still shows science does not know how life evolved from non life. I noticed it quoted Jack Stoczak the scientists who I quoted to disabuse you of your ignorance. It was he who stated science does not have a complete plausible pathway from life to non life. for instance I quoted this to you a few years ago.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/jack-szostak-life-in-the-lab_b_5540478.html Suzan Mazur: We may never know precisely the origin of life, but how much insight into the actual origin of life do you think a protocell like yours might give us, say, on a scale of 1 to 10? Jack Szostak: We’ve been working on one part of the problem. Other people are working on other parts of the pathway. I don’t worry, at this point, whether we’ll know exactly how it happened on the early Earth. What we’re trying to do is to work out a plausible pathway where all of the steps seem chemically and physically reasonable, and maybe we’ll end up with multiple pathways which are all possibilities. 2. I responded to ricter... then I put a dash... showing that conversation to be done... then I put in some backgroud regarding the Catholic Churches actual position on evolutions since futurecurrents did not have guts to back up what he said.
You quoted something years ago and have desperately clung onto it like a child grasping candy ever since. With the last couple of pieces of a jigsaw puzzle missing, there's no plausible pathway to complete it either, but you can certainly tell well before then what the picture is. Science has 99% of the pieces. The picture is more than clear. You act like a child refusing facts. As usual not only do you speak like a child, you make excuses like one . Futurecurrents also talked about origin of life. He only mentions - life starting on Earth. By copying chunks of text on evolution in response, you're thinking like an ill-informed child.
1. So on this page you go from saying there is more science showing life evolved from non life to admitting there is still no complete plausible pathway form non life to life. I don't cling to it... I re state the state of science correctly every time you lie about the science. If you have seen it a lot its because you lie a lot. What dishonest paid content providing troll puppet you are. You are a smart guy. You are wasting it lying on the internet. 2. I challenged FC to provide support for what he said about the catcholic church. He chose not to... so I cut and pasted a link from wiki that seemed to be a fair assessment. It was not even argumentative. But... since your hackles go up any time someone posts something about religion and science...you once again flew off the deep end and started in with insults and specious crap.
You wouldn't know the state of science if it smacked you in the mouth. Never said anything about the science being complete . It's perfectly obvious to anyone not acting like a child that science is full of plausible pathways. It has Never been argued they are completed plausible pathways. Add - read as a child - to that list. So you cut and pasted a link from wiki to do with the catholic church on evolution, but not to do with the catholic church on the origin of life. Why isn't that what I said. The way you think. As a child.
you wrote... "Not only is there plenty of science showing life from non life, here's some more, but everything points towards life having to come from non-life, as Ricter mentions." in the context of our long standing argument you are completely full of shit. but even just on this page... any thinking person reading the above would understand that you were saying we have science showing life evolved from non life because otherwise there would be no argument here. If that was not what you were trying to say... you were just trying to be a douche by trying to start this argument and then pretend you meant something you did not. by the way you still lose troll because... no one said... you said the science is complete. In fact that point would be irrelevant. The germane point - that you don't seem to understand - is any path the right one or just a plausible one is not complete because science does not have any path that shows each step of how non life evolved into life. on top of that ... Scientists may believe they have parts of a plausible path... but even then they don't know how life evolved from non life til they have a complete actual path. Apparently that is completely lost on you and your trolling.
Any thinking person would understand how it's idiotic to pretend there isn't plenty of science on the subject of life from non life. You are trying to say there isn't, otherwise there would be no argument here. The germane point - that you don't seem to understand is - that's NOT the point. No one ever said there was a complete plausible pathway. Incomplete doesn't stop there being plenty of science on plausible pathways. There's something you have to ask yourself sooner or later if you are to ever put away childish things. As all matter everywhere both life and non life is chemical throughout, what good reason would the origin of either not be chemical. Non life to life - inorganic to organic. Life to non life - organic to inorganic. Plenty of science showing both - all chemical. you think as a child , you talk as a child.
you are so full of troll shit... you used to deny you ever said it. now you are pretending it meant something innocuous.
You used to falsely claim I was the person who said science had plenty of proof of evolution from non life to life. I never said it. That's what I denied. You lie as a child.
you are now trying to make sneaky substantive changes to the wording. in your deceitful troll way... just like you did in the exchange below... when I caught you lying in the past... by the way ... I am close to done wasting my time with your lies on this subject. in the past you acted like there was science showing that life evolved from non life and then when you were called out you pretended to say something else. anyone can do a search and see it. Quote from jem: 4. We are still waiting for you to show "plenty of science showing life coming from non life". What you lie about in your references is speculation about how science may one day find that life evolved from non life. Just like the speculation about pan spermia. quote from stu... The statement is and always was "there is plenty of science to show how life can come from non life" Because on just about every occasion you can't even write it without changing it, doesn't make the statement itself untrue, it just makes you appear either dishonest or unintelligent or both. Abiogenesis contains proven science and research and is established. Because you won't acknowledge it, doesn't change the fact one iota.