Was at least the first life form created?

[rjh4 is back]

You are asserting that life could never have spontaneously arisen. You have to prove that in order for the statement to be true. You have not done that.

I am...but not in the first statement. I am asserting this by believing in the truthfulness of the second statement. But my second statement is a negative, i.e., Life in our universe never could have spontaneously arisen from non-living matter/energy. Isn't asking me to "prove" the that abiogenesis never could have happened like asking an athiet to prove that God does not exist? I have seen how athiests respond to the challenge to "prove" that God does not exist. Usually the response is something along the lines that it is the asserting party that must prove their case, i.e., the one asserting there is a God, as it is impossible to prove a negative. So I will likewise argue that the burden is on you to prove that abiogenesis could have happened. If this line of argument is not acceptable to you, then maybe you, Eilonnwy, would accept the challenge to prove that God does not exist. Back to abiogenesis...I would like to remind you that my assertion is quite falsifiable by proof that abiogenesis has happened, i.e., by experiments that demonstrate abiogenesis occurring.

Just because you can't imagine another method, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Quite true, but can you think of another possibility? Seems to me there are only two possibilities for at least the first life: abiogenesis or creation. I would be happy to entertain any other possibilities but I do not think it is my burden to come up with something I cannot think of. You could certainly falsify my first statement by showing me another possibility...and then I would have to consider this.

If you prove abiogenesis false, which you have failed to do so, you would still have to prove that there is no other possible way for life to come from non-life.

I think I addressed this above where I argue that this is not my burden to prove a negative and where I point out that you have not provided any other possibility other than abiogenesis and creation.

The Miller-Urey experiment proves they can achieve the building blocks for life, Amino Acids, from non-life. It doesn't matter that the conditions are now known to not have been those of early earth. It doesn't matter because that's not what you're claiming. By the simple statement of life coming from non-life, this experiment shows it's possible and that you are wrong.

The Miller experiment does not show that abiogenesis is possible and that I am wrong. It merely showed that when you do what Miller did that certain amino acids form. Big deal. That is far from proving that abiogenesis is possible. Did some sort of life come from that experiment? No. Furthermore, even the amino acids were a racemic mixture. Given that only L-amino acids occur in life as we know it and that life cannot happen with a racemic mixture, I would say it is more evidence proving death than life but in any case fails to prove me wrong.

Furthermore, just because we don't know specifically how the first ancestor was formed, does not mean "God did it".

So far I have not asserted that God did anything (even though I would have to admit that is where I would ultimately go). My assertion is that I think I have presented a logically consistent case that is falsifiable and you have failed to show me otherwise.

Is God alive? Do we assume he came into existence spontaneously or is he an exception to this line of logic?

First, I didn't say anything about God in my post and as an athiest why would you assume anything in particular about God as you do not think He exists. Second, your comment would assume that God has his origin, if He has one, in our universe (space/time continuum). I would not hold that, and, therefore, would conclude that God is not covered by my syllogism.