Thank you for an accurate and reasonable response.
I am not a scientist, my field is the law.
Within the framework of my field, evidence has very specific rules related to admissibility, quality, and conclusions drawn from that evidence.
The word "absolutely" is just a word for emphasis lets drop it. That leaves us with false.
If I state that suspect X is guilty of murder, before trial, the statement is false. He is legally presumed innocent.
If he goes to trial, and all the admissible evidence leads to a guilty verdict, then saying so is true. Until trial, the evidence cannot be understood as to how the jury will view it. What I might view as devastating evidence against the suspect, may be viewed by the jury as unimportant. Jury verdicts do not address absolute guilt, they address a reasonable supposition of guilt, again, based upon specific standards. In civil cases, the preponderance of evidence, in criminal cases, beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, it is difficult for me to view evidence outside of this ingrained system.
And that is how the law works. But science is not the same as the law. The goals are very different: law seeks justice, while science seeks truth. And, as I am sure you know, the two are often not the same.
In law, the jury verdict is what determines guilt or innocence. Furthermore, if found not guilty, no further prosecution (well, at least in the US) can be done for that same charge.
That is NOT how science works. Instead of being an adversarial dynamic, with one side trying to prove guilt or innocence, science tends to be a cooperative venture with all sides trying to figure out the truth. No jury verdict is made. Instead, discussion continues until the evidence is enough to convince all sides on an issue. new evidence is continually sought, and tests of each claim are expected to be made.
As to abiogenesis, there must be a jury somewhere that weighs the evidence, and based upon it, proclaim a verdict of true or false. It cannot be made in the basis of "it must be".
Nope, there is no jury. Anyone who disagrees, and that has relevant evidence, is able to comment. Now, there is an expectation that anyone entering into the debate do the necessary background research to be able to deal with the details or, at the very least, accept the views of those who have on any given point (unless there is evidence otherwise).
Debate is closed when there simply aren't any relevant objections left to discuss. And it can be reopened when new, relevant evidence is found.
Now, debate points from 150 years ago, that were resolved at that time and where no new evidence is relevant to the conclusion, are not going to be reopened because someone simply doesn't like the conclusion. They have to present *relevant* evidence and good reasoning before such happens. But, it *can* happen and has happened many times in the history of science.
This is a very, very long ongoing investigation and trial, the end is not in sight.
I consider the jury to be the actual scientific community working on the problem.
I consider the verdict to be when this jury reaches a consensus theory that is validated by scientific rules, like observation, and the others.
As I have said the evidence, is evidence of marvelous things, is it evidence of abiogenesis? I don't think anyone can say at this point, one can only slog away following various lines of inquiry.
My opinion is that it did not occur, nevertheless, a wise, and honest person doesn't deny true fact, even if it destroys their world view.
What exists for abiogenesis now is light years away from disabusing me of my opinion.
OK, but one of the aspects of how science works is by using competing models to seek out the truth. At each point in time, we use the model that has worked the best. Anyone who wishes to challenge that model has to give solid evidence striking at the heart of the model OR present a model of their own that explains more \ and is testable.
At this point, abiogenesis: that life arose naturally by chemical processes on the early Earth, is the best model we have. It has allowed us to structure a research program that has overcome many initial objections. Alternative models, like panspermia, are much less supported by the evidence at this point.
Those wanting to bring in supernatural agencies have a MUCH harder challenge:
First, they would have to give *independent* evidence of such supernatural agencies.
Second, they would have to give rules under which those agencies operate, which is what allows testability.
Third, they would have to show some link between those agencies and the origin of life.
Fourth, they would have to give *at least* as much detail as current chemical theories give.
Fifth: they would have to give a research program based on testing and improving their ideas.
Nobody has come anywhere close to doing these steps, so that aspect of biogenesis is simply not discussed: it simply isn't detailed enough to compete with the alternative theories.
