Was at least the first life form created?

[Eilonnwy]

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.

This is called Burden of Proof. It's a basic concept. I don't have to prove abiogenesis had to have happened because that's not what you assert. You assert by no means can life come from non-life. Abiogenesis is the idea that life comes from non-life through chemical evolution. There could be another method that we know nothing about. You cannot prove your statement to be true, so in essence, you have not met your burden of proof. It doesn't matter that I have not shown specifically how life comes from non-life, your argument is based on a fallacy so it doesn't work and is not a valid evidence for a creator.

And as far as me arguing for the non-existence of God, nice hand waving there, but this is not what we're discussing and neither have I claimed there is absolutely no god.

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.

False dichotomy. Regardless, there is another theory, Panspermia. It's a fascinating hypothesis that looks more promising with the discovery of amino acids on a comet.

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.

You are claiming there is no means by which life can come from non-life. you have to prove that. Regardles, panspermia, listed above. Another hypothesis. I've even met your silly claim that I have to provide another possibility when I really don't have to.

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.

Big deal? You clearly do not understand science. It shows abiogenesis is possibly, which clearly refutes your claim that by no means can life come from non-life.

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.

So why object to my criticism, if you know that's what you are claiming. It's fallacious to assume that because you don't know or can't imagine how something came to be means a god did it. You are essentially saying that you're going to say you don't know something, therefore you do know something. "I don't know how it happened, so god did it". It's the god of the gaps and has been so thoroughly shown to be fallacioius. People thought god made it rain because they didn't know better. Now we do.