Do We Have Empirical Demonstration/Confirmation of Abiogenesis? NO

But if it's being proposed that those verses describe some real event in the planet's history, it's important that the description makes sense, yes?

So what does 'the fountains of the great deep' mean? If some part of a described event is unclear, ambiguous or incomprehensible, it casts doubt on the rest.

"I can't be dogmatic" - that's an encouraging change  😉

I'm starting to get the impression that you're side-stepping a question for which you have no answer - you have only to view the considerable depth of the Grand Canyon to see for yourself just how much material has built up in the form of sedimentary strata (layers).

tbwp10 and I accept the scientific explanation of the laying down of sediments over geological time but you insist the entire structure was formed in only days or weeks(?).

The amount of sedimentary material involved is staggering and has to be measured in millions of cubic kilometres globally. No such amount of loose material has ever been seen just lying around on the surface. You need to address the question of how it originated if you expect your model of events to be credible.

Math

What expert do you listen to and what was the argument/hypothesis causes you to take that stand? Are you just hoping without cause! 

Will you be addressing my #102 or do you plan to continue side-stepping?

And the whole issue of fossil succession seems to have been sidestepped as well...

   In general I try not to be dogmatic about my opinions. I'd be ashamed to not be dogmatic about things that the Scriptures clearly state.

   And if by "... important that the description makes sense ..." you mean ""Important that I understand it", then no, it isn't.

You've asked variations of this question so many times you clearly haven't understood my replies, so let me try a different approach....

As I've stated many times I have no specialist knowledge when it comes to the search for how life emerged - what I know about cell biology can be written on a postage stamp. So what are people like me to do if they want to understand current thinking on the subject?

It seems obvious to rely on those who do have a lot of specialist knowledge and that naturally means the trained scientists who carry out research into this very subject. But relying on the views of individual scientists can be tricky because as in any area of complex research there may be individuals with inaccurate opinions, so it's more sensible to look to the consensus of what researchers believe as a whole.

This is why I usually refer to the 'body' of OOL researchers rather than any particular scientist. Those who study problems of this kind presumably believe there's a solution to be found and while that situation continues I'll rely on them to keep me (and the world) informed about progress.

I'm well aware of the contrary argument(s) by lone scientists but I plan to be guided by the position of researchers as a body.

O/k, so when I challenged T_M's suggestion that the flood was similar in violence to a Tsunami, you added the part about 'the fountains of the great deep breaking apart' in order to support his assertion but it seems you don't actually understand what that phrase means?

Is it a good idea to reach for supporting quotes that you don't actually appear to understand yourself? As soon as I challenge what the quote means, you're unable to support your own argument - do you see the problem?

As for this: "You see, that's the issue right there ... you are content to understand the current thinking on the subject and seem to be completely satisfied with that alone. You come across as if you believe that whatever the lab coat army believes at the moment is somehow necessarily the truth and that when they change their minds then the truth changes with them"

Our perspectives with regard to what is fact are very different. If we're talking about what is or isn't the fact of the matter when it comes to the origin of life, it behoves us to look to those who have specialist knowledge in the subject and they are the trained scientists involved in research.

Referring to them dismissively as "the lab coat army" reveals quite a lot about your attitude to science because at any one time they're the best informed people on the planet when it comes to OOL.

Knowledge of how natural systems function is an evolving process, the model changing as new discoveries are made. What it isn't is a group of people sitting around deciding what the truth of the situation is going to be this week!

@stephen_33 you have to be fair. You can't expect YECs to recognize the facts (or to stop fudging the facts) if you're unwilling to do the same. You write:

There are not contrary arguments by "lone scientists." The entire "body of OOL researchers" recognizes the problem of the Tar/Asphalt Paradox and the "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." Left to themselves, organics degrade into black goo/tar/asphalt, not evolve into life.

You keep trying to make it seem like what I'm saying runs counter to what the "body of OOL researchers" say, when they're the ones who are saying this. 

You keep trying to drive a wedge between what the "body of OOL researchers" personally *believe*, and what the "body of OOL researchers" empirically state and conclude as professional scientists based on the scientific evidence, and keep trying to distance yourself from the latter. 

It's fine if you want to *personally believe* like the "body of OOL researchers" do, but don't pretend that's the same as what the "body of OOL researchers" empirically state about the  OOL as professional scientists based on the scientific evidence. 

I think we're talking past each other now?

My position is simple - I look to OOL researchers to form a view of how things stand in the search for how life emerged. Since funding continues to be provided and since researchers continue to ply on with their work, it's reasonable to assume they believe progress of some kind is still possible, despite the obstacles we all acknowledge exist.

Beyond that I'm not clear what claims are being made.

Quite simply, and while still recognizing your confidence (and the confidence of many OOL researchers) that the OOL has a naturalistic solution (which is completely fine by the way, and a logical inference supported by the historical success of naturalism, and you might still be entirely correct about that), you can't seem to bring yourself to acknowledge that, yes, the *current* empirical evidence *to date* would seem to suggest that life can't arise from non-life; which is an accurate statement and assessment that comes from the "body of OOL researchers" themselves in the form of well-known, well-documented problems like the Tar/Asphalt Paradox.

"life can't arise from non-life"

Now you are making an emphatic assertion. If that conclusion was shared by most OOL researchers I think it's fair to say there wouldn't be any research in that field. There's no sense in pouring limited resources into a hopeless line of research and there's no point in squandering one's career for the same reason.

It isn't with me you need to argue this, it's with the collective OOL research community (I'm avoiding the use of 'body' since it seems to be contentious in itself).

The implication of your assertion is that researchers are at best opportunistic, for knowingly avoiding the inevitable truth so that funds keep flowing, or deceitful (i.e. charlatans) in maintaining the pretense of a possible breakthrough and hoodwinking us all.

@stephen_33 I'm sorry you think so. I don't believe that at all. Like I said, I support continued research, because that's the nature of science and how science works. All scientific conclusions are *tentative* and can change with additional data. That's why I made sure to emphasize *current* empirical evidence *to date* "suggests." All scientific conclusions are tentative conclusions based on the current evidence that we have amassed to-date and could all change tomorrow. 

Why would we stop funding research on the OOL when naturalism has had such a successful track record at explaining things? And besides (and to reiterate once again), that is not how science works. When we draw a conclusion based on the *current* evidence to date that doesn't mean we stop research. That's not how science works. We go out and collect more data to see if that additional data still supports our original conclusion, or if it supports a different one or is an exception to our original conclusion. And we need continued funding for that. That's how scientists look at all this. That's how I look at it, too. I can objectively state what the *current* evidence *indicates* to date (regardless and independent of whether or not it happens to support or go against my personal metaphysical beliefs), but I want the research to continue, because for one, its just interesting and fascinating, and I want to know if additional research will confirm our conclusions or alter them. 

Now it seems difficult to imagine how the conclusions about the Tar/Asphalt Paradox could ever change, because they are supported by an enormous amount of empirical evidence. But maybe, just maybe there are still some exceptions to it or ways to avoid or side-step it. And recently (within 10 yrs) it was discovered that the chemical element Boron can chemically protect or "cap" so to speak, the C=O carbonyl groups in organics that are the culprit for devolution into black goo. Under the right conditions this can stabilize activated nucleotides. Now this is nowhere near a solution, it is still theoretical and something we only see in the lab (activated nucleotides don't even exist in nature), and it's not a complete work around by any means but only a work around for a single chemical step. But if we stopped funding we never would have learned this. Who knows. There may be other workarounds that exist. I'm not anti-naturalism. I'm pro-science.

So that's why it's important to continue research to see if we can, in fact, find solutions, which many OOL researchers still hope we can. But none of that changes the fact that the *current* empirical evidence *to-date* suggests that it is *impossible* (OOL researchers' words; not mine) for life to evolve from non-life (i.e., it seems "impossible" to escape the Tar/Asphalt Paradox)....which you still seem unable to bring yourself to say.

Crossed wires - I read that as meaning "life can't arise from non-life; which is an accurate statement".

In other words you were stating emphatically that pursuing the search for a naturalistic solution is pointless. But you meant instead that it's accurate to say that evidence to date only suggests this is the case.

I don't have a problem with that but I think we've exhausted this line of discussion.

I've said nothing different. I've posted the same quote since page 1, starting with the OP. The current empirical evidence seems to indicate it's impossible-- a word scientists don't like to use about anything, but that's what's in the quote, and that's what the scientific evidence suggests. It's hard to imagine this conclusion changing, but science must always leave open the possibility. By contrast, you seem to keep adding to my words, "You were stating emphatically that pursuing the search for a naturalistic solution is pointless"--when I said nothing of the sort; those are your words, not mine (you're starting to remind me of someone). I keep saying research must continue. There are always more questions to answer. More discoveries to be made. None of that has any bearing on what the current empirical evidence seems to indicate: that it seems impossible for life to come from non-life.

Your question assumes it took millions of years for the sedimentary to find itself where we see it and it has been said the flood was not only water coming down, but up as well. Great drainage occurs when all of the water either goes back into the earth or evaporates, having that much water flow into the earth must have also been an earth-moving event. You assume much.