Do We Have Empirical Demonstration/Confirmation of Abiogenesis? NO

Have I asked you to take scripture over what you see, I believe it to be true, I don't believe there is more than one truth, something either is or isn't true. Therefore there is no scriptural truth and scientific truth that contradict one another, something is or is not true. So yes, I believe that the evidence supports a creation event over nothing starting everything, I believe in a creation event over an eternal universe, the options are limited, as to possibilities and logic doesn't allow for more than one correct answer to be the truth.

There is nothing about evolution's mindlessness beginning or even altering code that is common sense, you are required to believe in things that have supporting stories that would make some of the evidence fit, but they cannot answer all of the questions, like where the information comes from that drives the processes, which is a huge sticking point, that cannot be accounted for so common sense not so much. There is a huge gaping hole in the theory, with nothing to fill it at all!

I grant you a creation event is also something that must also be accepted because singular events cannot be redone to find the answers. We do not murder someone to prove murder, we can only look at the evidence and draw the best possible conclusion.  With creation, information, and fine-tuning all can be explained, with a mindless beginning nothing can.

The thing about the truth is no matter what it is, how old it gets, and where it comes from, it remains true. It is also very rigid, it either is or is not true, there are no shades of truth, if you want to have a changeable truth to suit you, it isn't the truth you are seeking, just validation of what you want to be true, not truth itself.

By your own admission you have a closed mind on all subjects relating to the emergence of the Universe and life itself.

That makes any discussion on those subjects fruitless as far as I'm concerned because (scientific) conclusions must be driven by the available evidence, not the religious views of a small tribe of Judeans in the early iron Age!

How so, you can refute anything I say by giving something that says this is how the information that drives life's processes, got there, but you cannot, and you admit you don't have anything you can point to and you are calling me closed-minded? I can point to how information drives processes, it gets put there not by a mindless process without a plan or purpose, but someone an agency that thinks. Fruitless is your suggesting there is no reason to think someone will find something where there is no reason at all to suggest they can or will, that is not a position backed up with a cause justifying that belief. I've not told you to accept anything due to religious writing, I've said that the things we don't just happen without a reason that causes them too, and you have nothing whatsoever to say otherwise.

Well, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

Reasonable explanations require reasons, when all that is available is wishful thinking, that someone, some day, may come up with something, that is not scientific, that is philosophically driven🧐.

@TruthMuse, In fairness, I must point out the same thing I did to @stephen_33. You can't really expect @stephen_33 to acknowledge any weaknesses, lack of evidence, etc. with his own position if you're unwilling to recognize any weaknesses, lack of evidence, etc. with yours. (Like with the fossil record/geologic record, for example. Or the many cases where you are unable to provide a better (more "reasonable") explanation of the data/evidence).

(*Although kudos on you're willingness to at least acknowledge that "maybe" he "might" have a valid point for not abandoning naturalism right away in light of its historical success at explaining things...That was an impressive first step and a sign of intellectual honesty. I have yet to see that type of acknowledgment reciprocated back to you, but here's hoping.)

The thing about 'naturalism' is that I don't believe anyone has ever tried to define precisely where the boundaries are or what can be properly defined as 'naturalistic', so I'm more than happy still to entertain the possibility of a naturalistic explanation for life but one that stretches existing limits.

It's not so long ago that if a physicist had proposed the existence of an entirely unknown and strange form of matter and claimed it made up the greater part of all 'massive' matter, they would have been ridiculed and possibly expelled from their professional body.

But today the concept of 'Dark Matter' is mainstream and fully accepted despite being very mysterious. Much the same applies to 'Dark Energy'.

As time goes by our knowledge of the physical increases but our understanding of what's possible within the physical also expands to embrace new concepts.

That's about as far as I'm prepared to go on the subject of OOL.

Was speaking less about how far someone's willing to go, and more about just recognizing how someone else could see it differently and that based on the evidence someone else might have a valid point 

I was addressing your remark: "kudos on you're willingness to at least acknowledge that "maybe" he "might" have a valid point for not abandoning naturalism right away"

I'd say that we're some way away from being forced to 'abandon naturalism' and the community of OOL researchers would appear to think so too?

As far as I can see the furthest we can go is to say that answering the question of the origin of life is extremely difficult within the limits of naturalism, as science understands it, but no credible alternative line of investigation is available.

Well as you already know and are well aware (it virtually goes without saying) that naturalism will NEVER be "abandoned" because science is defined and operates in terms of methodological naturalism, and science is never going to abandon itself. This would also seem to entail that abiogenesis is incapable of ever being falsified, which then begs the question of whether abiogenesis can even be considered to be a proper scientific hypothesis. (If you disagree, then you need to explain very precisely in evidentiary terms what it would take to falsify abiogenesis. If abiogenesis can't be falsified, then it's not very scientific).

So requiring naturalism be "abandoned" is tautological/circular, and is a bit of a 'cheat.' It is a convenient way to insulate oneself from ever having to deal with the evidence (or lack thereof). It's a convenient way to ignore and absolve oneself from having to deal with 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." As no "enormous amount of empirical data" will ever be enough. That is fundamentally no different from how no amount of evidence will be enough for YECs, due to their metaphysical commitments. They are both convenient ways to avoid dealing with the scientific evidence.

And plenty of people do that, so you can too, if that's what you want to do.

But surely you can understand if other people don't feel compelled to follow suit. Even though you don't reject it, surely you can appreciate how other people could reject abiogenesis and arrive at the conclusion that something more than nature is needed in light of the "enormous amount of empirical data" that suggest abiogenesis is not possible.

I'm not qualified to answer that - you need to ask researchers investigating the subject what might falsify abiogenesis because I have no idea.

I think we can safely assume that they don't agree with the idea that abiogenesis is impossible to falsify, otherwise their scientific integrity would have forced them to admit it.

What weakness do I have in the fossil record, there are fossils, people find in the ground, and depending on what part of the ground they find them in they associate that with age, don't care, it is not a problem for me, age of the universe isn't an issue I have, it is the timing of events, system requirements, tolerances, mathematically probabilities, information, none of these things get altered if the universe is billions of years old or thousands. On the other hand, if the earth/universe is very young, kiss the millions of years goodbye to get lucky to have something mutate into something useful because there were no millions of years. 

Neither Abiogenesis nor Creation is going to be shown true, because it doesn't matter which one is correct, they are both singular events in space-time if true!

As I pointed out with a murder, we don't kill someone else to prove someone else did indeed murder another, those types of events we must look at the evidence and find the best possible answer, what answers all of the questions, what explains all of the facts?

Actually, OOL researchers have noted this in published papers. Plus, the fact that it's assumed to be true already a priori

But that's not even the most significant part of my post.....which you seem to be avoiding 

You can only maintain your views about fossils and evolution by ignoring/dismissing mountains of evidence

What mountains, we find fossils in the ground, and people then create stories to explain why they were there, is that what you are calling evidence? 

"We find fossils in the ground and people then create stories..." 

If it is more than that prove it. We find them in the ground, observable, not denying that then people start talking about them as if they know, or do you think they know?

That's like your murder scene analogy above and a forensic scientist showing up and saying, "the only thing I can tell you is that's a body on the ground....but I can make up creative stories about it." If you're going to maintain that type of view, then your murder scene analogy of how we need to look at all the evidence and find the best possible explanation that explains all the facts becomes completely meaningless, because by your view the only "fact" we can say is there's a body on the ground. 

Take some geology and paleontology classes