The issue is what is the nature of causes which brought about life and what evidence is linked to the conclusion?

Alan Fox: You omitted "philosophical" in the above statement. I.e.:

No. I meant what I wrote. But since you apparently think the need to identify physical causes is superfluous why not enlighten us by identifying the nature of the causes that resulted in life and the objective evidence.

Alan Fox: But, I don't know, Bradford. There are no certainties. If I did know, I suspect I might write a book and suggest everyone buy it.

I included earlier quotes for context. If you do not know why would you suggest the insertion of the word philosophical when my reference was to physical causality?

But since you apparently think the need to identify physical causes is superfluous why not enlighten us by identifying the nature of the causes that resulted in life and the objective evidence.

But, I don't know, Bradford. There are no certainties. If I did know, I suspect I might write a book and suggest everyone buy it.

And please stop assuming what I think. If it interests you at all, you can always ask me.

The issue is what is the nature of causes which brought about life and what evidence is linked to the conclusion?

Alan Fox: You omitted "philosophical" in the above statement. I.e.:

No. I meant what I wrote. But since you apparently think the need to identify physical causes is superfluous why not enlighten us by identifying the nature of the causes that resulted in life and the objective evidence.

The issue is what is the nature of causes which brought about life and what evidence is linked to the conclusion?

You omitted "philosophical" in the above statement. I.e.:

The philosophical issue is what is the nature of causes which brought about life and what evidence is linked to the conclusion?

Socrates does science

Now, if you're asking us to express doubt that a materialistic explanation will be found, and instead take the empty position "God did it", well, the history of science suggests that's never been the productive course of action.

Why not instead begin by doubting your own stereotypes. Theists know that God acts through nature and that the "God did it" tagline is therefore a thoughtless response. The issue is what is the nature of causes which brought about life and what evidence is linked to the conclusion?

Run, rabbit, run.

Still avoiding the issue, I see.

In both cases, the second sentence gives a reason for the first.

Let's recap.

In other words, the theories that evoke your "innate hostility" are those that challenge your theological preconceptions.

and later

I logically conclude that the theories to which you are hostile are ones that exclude the possibility of being initiated by God.

Your 'logic' (And let's be frank - there was no logic here. There were only bad, poorly thought out hunches) has failed you horribly, multiple times, in this very thread. Again, I wasn't the only one noticing you were doing this. There's nothing in my response to TP to indicate my hostility to any scientific theories, especially under an abiogenesis heading. Hell, the exact opposite is there - me asserting my utter lack of hostility to abiogenesis in general, a sample of the various forms, and mentioning my beliefs are completely compatible with them. You made a clumsy dive for 'Well, by including an adjective before hostile, I'm going to take that to mean you reject abiogenesis theories that exclude a designer'. Speaking of that..

P.S. I'm not ignoring your challenges on the the other issues, but I can see that you're desperately trying to change the subject away from this issue. Deal with this one first "” it is, after all, the whole point of the dispute.

Yes, I'm writing long, drawn-out replies about the true meaning of my throwaway two sentences in order to change the subject. Because a question about one of these so-called 'abiogenesis theories that exclude instigation by a Designer' isn't on-topic, and there can never be more than one question answered in a comment thread.

Really, robin. When I said outright that I have no problem with abiogenesis, and proceeded to name RNA World, primitive ET, and Gold's theory as entirely in sync with a Designer, that should have made it abundantly clear that abiogenesis isn't an issue with me. Why you thought it was a good idea to try and accuse me of 'rejecting other theories due to faith', then NARROWING the field to abiogenesis theories, is incredible. I can only assume you really thought there were scientific abiogenesis theories out there that exclude a designer's involvement. Which says a lot about just how much thought you've given this subject.

So this is an opportunity for abiogenesis enthusiasts to weigh in with their own doubts. If you don't have them express them anyway. If doubting one's own religious convictions is healthy, doubting an origins story, which does not live up to its empirical billing, is healthier still.

There isn't really 'an' origins story. There is no model of abiogenesis which is considered solid yet. There's a lot of rough notions like PAH, polyphosphates, RNA world, Lipid world, the clay theory (I know a guy who worked on that at Stanford), etc etc etc but it's still very young and nothing's been put forth confidently enough to make doubting it all that meaningful. Scientists know that most of the discussion on this subject will be proved wrong in the future, so you could say that they currently doubt most of it. Scientists argue about the merits and drawbacks of the different possibilities all the time. Now, if you're asking us to express doubt that a materialistic explanation will be found, and instead take the empty position "God did it", well, the history of science suggests that's never been the productive course of action.

Well, that's interesting.

I'll say. You've completely avoided the entire point of my previous comment, which is that saying this:

And for the record, I'm not innately hostile to abiogenesis theories. Primitive ET life, RNA world, Gold's theory - why, I can see a Designer deciding to initiate any of these options.

…is like saying this:

I've got no problems with the contract. It treats both parties fairly.

In both cases, the second sentence gives a reason for the first.

Spin all you want. The point remains obvious.

P.S. I'm not ignoring your challenges on the the other issues, but I can see that you're desperately trying to change the subject away from this issue. Deal with this one first — it is, after all, the whole point of the dispute.