Do We Have Empirical Demonstration/Confirmation of Abiogenesis? NO

If professional scientists engaged in OOL research were confident that their quest was ultimately hopeless, based on the kind of argument given above, why would they continue?

That science as an endeavour can only address the physical is not by itself a reason (or excuse) to continue with a field of research that's doomed to failure. This is why I look to professional researchers in order to form an opinion on the subject.

As we’ve discussed many times before, it's for the same reason that creationists don't abandon flood geology: they have faith the evidence will eventually prove them right. 

And to be clear, you're not forming an opinion based on professionals' scientific assessment of the situation, but on their *personal faith/belief" they have in metaphysical naturalism. The proof of this, is that I've already given you scientists' assessment like with the Tar/Asphalt Paradox quote on the prior page that is from Steven Benner a top origin of life scientist who is a diehard metaphysical naturalist.

This continues to baffle me your response and the response of others in the other forum. Again, my point is simply to say that we do not have empirical demonstration/confirmation of abiogenesis and thus we cannot state that it is an established scientific fact. I am not arguing for or against naturalism, or even the inference that a naturalistic cause still makes more sense. If you want to make that argument (which you have), then that's fine by me. I'm looking at this strictly from an evidentiary standpoint and merely pointing out the obvious that the evidentiary standard has not been met in the case of abiogenesis. And I have to say I'm a little surprised by the pushback that seems to be motivated more by metaphysics than science. This is glaringly obvious and evident by the fact that when anti-evolutionists come here and claim there's no evidence for evolution we can provide them an inexhaustible wealth of empirical evidence to demonstrate otherwise, and the fact that with abiogenesis we can point to no empirical evidence and the 'best' that can be marshaled is that despite "an enormous amount of empirical data" to the contrary that professional scientists have given us, because those same scientists *personally* believe in naturalism (or until they state there's no possible naturalistic cause, which they'll never do, because of their personal beliefs on the subject and faith that it will still work out one day); right there that shows how flimsy the case is. The fact that we can't point to actual empirical evidence like we can with evolution is telling. I don't know why it is so hard for people to admit the obvious: that the evidentiary standard has not been met for abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that is assumed to be true, but that has yet to be empirically demonstrated or confirmed to be true. Them's just the facts. If I'm wrong, then point me to the wealth of empirical, experimental evidence that demonstrates otherwise.

Sometimes I get frustrated with people who share my own metaphysical beliefs with how stubborn they can be in the face of evidence (or lack thereof) and unwillingness to make honest admissions, and I find it embarrassing and don't blame the non-religious for how such stubbornness must look to them. In those moments, the non-religious seem more reasonable, and I guess I just naturally expect that reasonableness to continue. But then when I see the same type of stubborn unwillingness by the non-religious to make honest admissions themselves of where the evidence does and doesn't support, I'm reminded that this isn't a problem with the religious at all and that the non-religious do the exact same thing.

....I guess it's just human nature for all of us. The mind has trouble letting go of what it's convinced is right, even when there's a wealth of evidence to the contrary 

There's no equivalence! Creationists base their beliefs on demonstrably false religious dogma while OOL researchers apply strict standards of scientific rigour.

It's entirely reasonable and proper to investigate how life emerged by naturalistic means until the time when researchers as a body conclude that there's no naturalistic explanation for life on Earth. That hasn't happened yet.

You probably need to expand on this thought - what 'wealth of evidence' do you have in mind? It clearly doesn't impress those involved in OOL research or they'd presumably shut up their labs and go and find something else to do.

And what precisely do you have in mind by 'the contrary'? What are you suggesting constitutes the contrary here?

You're mistaken to think I have a fixed opinion on the subject of OOL but it's entirely reasonable to look to those with expert knowledge of cell chemistry and when they announce they've changed their minds then so will I.

Scientists don't quit their jobs when there are problems, but try to solve the problems, and one of those problems for which we have a 'wealth of evidence' and that comes from the scientists themselves, is the Tar/Asphalt Paradox (*which provides "an enormous amount of empirical data" to the *contrary*); and which I will post again for a third time (below). And once again, you are confusing scientists' personal beliefs with the empirical data scientists' have amassed. Interesting that you would accept one (their beliefs), but not the other (empirical data), while still being unwilling to acknowledge the simple, non-controversial fact that abiogenesis is not an established scientific fact (which was my only point).

Tar/Asphalt Paradox 

"An enormous amount of empirical data" that suggest "that it is impossible for *any* non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the 'living'." (OOL researcher Stephen Benner)

And another statement about the Tar/Asphalt Paradox...

(See also, "Origin of Life Paradoxes")

Research scientists rely very much on grants from academic institutions, businesses and sometimes government departments.

With so many equally worthy projects crying out for more funding, why would any of those sources of limited money continue to fund a field of research that was considered to be exhausted and without hope of bearing any fruit?

For the same reason I've always said: because they don't consider it hopeless, but still have faith and hope that one day it will be figured out. However, my point is more simply an evidentiary statement of what we can and can't conclude, and based on the evidence to date we can state that:

Abiogenesis has not been empirically demonstrated/confirmed and thus we cannot state that it is an established scientific fact. 

So you are free to believe in metaphysical naturalism if that's what you want, while someone else can believe in metaphysical supernaturalism, which would not be an illogical belief in this case, but a logical inference supported by "an enormous amount of empirical data" that "suggest that it is impossible for *any* non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the 'living'."

I prefer to rely on the considered view of researchers as a professional body, since I have no expertise in the field. So if they refrain from talking about abiogenesis so will I and if they conclude that no naturalistic cause for life is possible, so will I.

Scientists aren't actually able to make or test metaphysical statements like that. Science assumes metaphysical naturalism a prior by default, but can't prove metaphysical naturalism. However, all that is again still irrelevant to my point. You are free to assume abiogenesis is still somehow true like many scientists do, while also recognizing that abiogenesis has not been empirically demonstrated to be true, like scientists also recognize.

"...while also recognizing that abiogenesis has not been empirically demonstrated to be true, like scientists also recognize"

Have I ever failed to do that because I can't remember doing so. Others certainly have but it's the kind of thing I usually avoid.

The other side of the coin is certain people of faith who insist that abiogenesis is impossible, therefore life was created intentionally and therefore everything in the Bible, the book of Genesis at least, is shown to be correct (ahem!)

"Have I ever failed to do that?"

I actually don't recall you ever making a direct statement about it.

And regarding those who "insist abiogenesis is impossible" the empirical evidence would seem to support that. As to believing Genesis and the Bible and such I highly doubt such beliefs are founded solely on abiogenesis seeming to be impossible but are based on other reasons as well.

Whatever any of us may think about OOL, the status quo is most probably going to endure for many years to come.

Or until some credible alternative comes to light?

I have no problem with abiogenesis as a working hypothesis. People just seem unaware of the scientific facts on the subject. 

You are not pushing a natural explanation as it has been pointed out to you, you do not have one, nor are you looking for one. What you are pushing is a restriction on any explanation offered, they must be one without the possibility of a cause not found in the material world alone. That isn't an argument for anything, it is simply a denial of what could be true so you can reject it out of hand no matter what.

TM has a point 

Actually I'm not 'pushing' any particular line at all, I'm advocating caution and a wait and see approach, taking note of what researchers in the field of OOL are saying.

I happen to think they're the best informed people on the subject but some here appear to doubt that.

🙄  Not really.

Anyone who believes that I'm pushing some particular point of view hasn't been reading my posts carefully enough. The only thing I've been saying is that we should take note of the most expert people when it comes to OOL research.

On the subject of an alternative (non-naturalistic) cause for life on Earth, it is a fact I believe that very little could be said about it. And it's best to avoid wild speculation when a factual vaccuum exists, that's all I'm saying.