Scared of the truth?
I don't understand this repeated, misleading mantra of yours - are you one of those people that, at least when it comes to non-bible stuff, think that we must know 100% about something before it can be mentioned?
Me and my science?
I am not an OOL researcher, I study the evolution of mammals.
Hadn't you heard? OOL is irrelevant to evolution of life.
How life began has no bearing whatsoever on the ToE. It could have even been created by the Hindu deities, it wouldn't matter to the ToE.
But the classic disingenuous tactic for the desperate is to conflate OOL and evolution, decry the dearth of solid evidence for OOL, and then try to claim that the ToE is wrong.
Classic logical fallacies are employed and revered.
So your continued insistence upon this tactic means that you must now answer for Islam and 9/11, since you are a religioniionist and all religions rely on each other.
It seems to bother you folks a lot, seeing as how you engage in these years-long campaigns of disinformation to attack evolution via whining about OOL.
Still waiting for your interview with 12-years dead Stanley Miller.
Right...
And TRUE believers in middle eastern tall tales MUST pretend to understand the science involved, even when it is clear they do not, MUST copy-paste the same, tired complaints and lies from their archives and from their fellow creationist science-rejects, MUST then whine about how mean everyone is when your deceptive and refuted tactics are exposed.
I've seen it hundreds of times. You are no different.
Apparently they think that shielding an alleged supernatural process that nobody knows anything about to a natural one for which people are at least doing research into supports their faith in ancient middle eastern tales with ZERO evidence.
Why lie?
I have posted for you on a dozen occasions links to and/or quotes/citations from OOL research. You dismiss it all by claiming to 'be familiar with it' and that is where it ends. I have exposed your oft-repeated fibs about the Miller-Urey experiments, but you just keep repeating them to make it look like you have something legitimate to claim, I guess.
I bring up the obvious when it becomes clear that you have no desire - and probably no ability - to discuss any of the actual research.
Cool projection, bro.
Can't wait until you present that "recent interview" with a 12-years dead Stanley Miller in which he declared his experiments to have been a failure.
I'm sure you will present that totally not made up interview right after you acknowledge the fact that many, many other experiments inspired by Miller's, using updated info on what the early earth's atmosphere was probably like, using different combinations of chemicals, different energy sources (to include freezing), etc. produced even more bio-organic molecules, to include asymmetrical chirality and so many other outcomes that creationist layfolk have been ordered to carry on about over the years regardless of the actual state of affairs, information that the overconfident Dunning-Kruger effect ambassadors for Jesus will dismiss by claiming to 'be familiar with it' then not writing a thing about any of it.
Bring it on. But at least acknowledge that your beliefs are built on whims and desires, while what I accept is founded on things that you clearly cannot deal with.
Your posted research, is research for sure. Does it shed any light on abiogenesis, no.
All that has been produced stands alone. There is NO pathway to life identified. Can you not grasp that ?
A few of the required ingredients for life, are just that, nothing more.
Abiogenesis isn´t what may have been produced naturally, it is a PROCESS that creates life.
You could cite a natural process that creates lungs, or livers, or brains, yet if you cannot identify the process that makes them into a living animal, you have nothing.
All of the bio chemical research has the same problem, no linkage with a process that creates life.
The net variety of what is alleged to have been produced in a possible process on the primordial earth is hopelessly short of what a living organism requires.
Again you bring up religion, why ? I haven´t.
Why do you feel religion is part of a discussion of abiogenesis ?
You believe in abiogenesis, yet for all your thrashing about, huffing and puffing, you know the bottom line is that no one knows how it could occur.
If, in your knowledge of the research, an actual pathway to life had been discovered, observed, and replicated, produce it and prove me wrong.
Otherwise, abiogenesis remains something accepted by faith. Something totally unproven. something you believe to have happened, without evidence that it did.
The stinging will go away, consider it part of a lesson you learned.
Keep the faith.
Agasin