I was specific in stating multiple abiogenesis events was a hypothesis (guess), what is your problem with that.
Provide the falsifiable, peer reviewed evidence for creation then it can be called science.
What, you have none, am i surprised?
The definitions such as they are are available freely on the internet to anyone actually interested.
Why don't you do a little research before marking bold and incorrect claims. Analysis of rocks that formed during the period tells a great deal of what the atmosphere consisted of. And of course the rocks themselves tell of their formation. Just becase you don't like it does not make it go away.
Accurate within less than 1%. As for what they tell us, see above
You made a comment, a demand. I replied. You cannot justify your own claim of god, you have no idea how god did it making it sufficiently like magic to be called magic. Or perhaps you can provide the science..
Clairvoyance as well?
Of course one cannot duplicate what didn't happen but science is quite close to duplicating abiogenesis as it did happen.
No, creation was not lost in the bronze age but is a bronze age idea formed becase at the time there was no better explanation. Unfortunately the idea was not lost to time.
Evidence please.
The fossil record is complete for about 3 million years, then small gaps begin to appear but gaps that can be filled with knowledge of how evolution works, how bones develop. That continues for about another 4 million years. After which the gaps get bigger, but can still be projected with chemistry and biological knowledge.
Then we have genetics and DNA evidence, DNA cannot lie.
Then we have observation, i personally can visit the local museum and study homo sapiens bone structure for the last 38,000 years, see my avatar, a meaningful example that is dear to me.
I can recommended
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 for anyone interested, but i wont hold my breath
