Do We Have Empirical Demonstration/Confirmation of Abiogenesis? NO

Yet you try to correct me when I'm talking about evolution and the age of fossils. Processes in place don't lend themselves to act the way they do by chance, it is always with cause, those causes either have something to do with a mind or not, and depending on the functional complexity in play it becomes obvious which one for those that require evidence not wishful thinking.

TruthMuse, being a 'rock' when it comes to the defence of your religious beliefs doesn't mean that you should think like one!

And tbwp, don't be too despondent. It's not possible to get through to everyone and when dealing with the 'noodles' of the internet, we should remember that the majority of people do actually think and reason more like us?

If you can point to FACTS that undermine anything I say bring it to the forefront. You are a fine one to talk about being a rock in defense of your beliefs as you freely admit you have no evidence to promote abiogenesis but hope in it nonetheless. I can give you cause why I believe what I do and not bring religion into it, you can dismiss my views by what bringing my religion into it.

@TruthMuse you're surrounded by facts but choose to ignore them. And you continue to argue with your imaginary strawman against points that I have not raised and you don't have the common courtesy to acknowledge the difference but continue to attribute to me things that I have not said no matter how many times I correct you. That's just plain rude.

WHAT FACTS 

You have seen the points l have made name a specific fact I ignore.

Thart's a good one....

Very funny, you should try a little harder to be offensive you seem to have a knack for it.

Believe it or not, it was not meant to be funny or offensive, but a factual statement of what you are doing and way to convey my immense frustration at among other things your rudeness in continuing to attribute 'strawman' points to me that I have not made or said

Actually don't believe you, you had to know how that was going to come off and be taken.

That's your choice

Typical

Wow, there's just no pleasing you. 

I just call it like I see it. If I'm wrong in my assessment of you, then I'm willing to admit it or change that assessment. So by all means prove me wrong.  But you won't even acknowledge that dinosaurs are not found at the bottom of the fossil record. So yes, someone who shuts their eyes to basic facts like that, how else would you characterize that other than someone burying their head in the sand and willfully ignoring the facts. But hey, prove me wrong. I welcome it. I want you to prove me wrong! Then we'd actually have made some progress on the subject instead of wasting ridiculous amounts of time just trying to agree on basic, observational facts that are not even controversial.

Tbwp, would you say that we have unearthed and examined 1% of the "fossil column" on Earth?

   Or is it more accurate to say that we haven't even come anywhere close to uncovering and examining 1% of 1% of 1% of the "fossil column" on Earth?

   And if so why would Truthmuse "acknowledge that dinosaurs are not found at the bottom of the fossil column" or why would anyone confidently declare that they are not?

I'm not sure if tbwp will understand the point of your question because I certainly don't, so what is it exactly?

* I see you've added a question that answers mine. But did you spot my example of stopped clocks after an earthquake and the perfectly reasonable inference it's possible to make from such observations? Exactly how many stopped clocks (showing the same time) do we need before we're forced to the conclusion that the earthquake occurred at that time?

In all of the excavations that paleaologists have done, never once have they found the fossilised remains of any species of dinosaur lower than a certain rock strata and never ever at the lowest (i.e. oldest) ones. So how many excavations does it take before we're drawn to the overwhelming realisation that dinosaurs were not present at that earliest period of the development of life?

Answer the two simple questions with a simple yes or no  and I'll tell you my point (although anyone should see it already).

* I've edited my earlier post!  ↑ 😊

Because they're not. It's an observational fact. If tomorrow we discover dinosaurs in the bottom most rocks of the fossil record, then we will have observed something new, and our observations change.

There is a difference between what we observe to be true, and the confidence with which we can generalize and apply observations to the rest of the world. This is the long-standing debate about *inductive reasoning* (as opposed to deductive reasoning). This is what modern medicine has to deal with, for example. Let's say a research study finds that prescription drug X lowers blood pressure for the 1,000 people who were part of the study. The question then becomes how confident we can be that this observation would hold true for 7 billion people. It's an important question, to be sure, but a different question that does not alter what was originally observed. Do you see how arguing that such an observation doesn't apply to the rest of world doesn't mean that we didn't observe blood pressure drop for the 1,000 people who took drug X?

So if you want to argue that the factual observation that dinosaurs are not found at the bottom of the fossil record is unlikely to hold true in all cases, then you can certainly do that, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't observe dinosaurs at the bottom of the fossil record. 

But we can't even get an acknowledgement of this basic, observational fact.

Do you also see how questioning this observational fact amounts to speculation? Someone could argue until they're blue in the face that there is other life in the universe. They could also try to marshal a sophisticated argument for why they think it's probable that other life exists. But it still amounts to speculation. It is still an argument that tries to explain the absence of evidence for one's position. And it still doesn't change the fact that we don't observe other life in the universe.

*So let's not miss that. To deny the basic, observational fact that we don't observe dinosaurs at the bottom of the fossil record is to deny basic reality. To argue that the observation is unlikely to hold true still requires that we acknowledge the fact of the observation. To argue that the observation is unlikely to hold true is certainly an argument that one can make, but it is still speculation, and not evidence of anything itself.

But we're *still* just trying to agree on the simple observational fact that we have not observed dinosaurs at the bottom of the fossil record (!)

Why do you think where something was found means evolutionary time is identified, where a million other causes could come into play? What you are doing is simply making the judgment call and calling your conclusions facts, and facts are fact, opinions are opinions. The earth eruptions with the water springing up bursting out along with the great storm had water 💦 filling the surface. It went back to looking like before God uncovered the land to create life on. Then water flowing back into the earth would also have on the surface great forces due to water moving into earth would be altering everything as well.

 You just claim things you can not possibly know but call what you think they mean facts!