(August 10, 2017 at 10:36 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:rjh4 is back Wrote:It seems to me the "It's still hypothetical" is inconsistent with "but it's very inaccurate to say there's no known naturalists mechanism for the origin of life."There are several plausible hypotheses for the origin of life from non-living organic matter easily found on Wikipedia or with a Google search. The evidence is over 3 billion years old, so we may never know which of them is correct (or if a mechanism not yet on the list is the case), but to say there 'is no naturalistic mechanism' by which it could happen simply isn't true. A naturalistic mechanism doesn't have to be the case to be a naturalistic mechanism, it only has to be possible.
As far as I know, scientists still cannot begin with non-living matter so as to produce life. If they cannot do it in a controlled lab, why is it plausible that it would happen in nature?
Why do you think it is plausible that we can duplicate in a matter of decades what took nature hundreds of millions of years to accomplish?
So far, scientists have made a bacteria genome from scratch and placed it in a de-nucleated cell which then started functioning again. When an entire cell can be made 'from scratch', how will it affect your opinion on the likelihood of a naturalistic mechanism for the origin of life being the correct one?
As I explained before in this thread (that is not a criticism of you as I know you just jumped in) starting with a living organism and modifying it with man-made parts is far from beginning with just the chemicals and getting to life.
Also, a hypothesis does not prove that life can come from non-life. And how do we know whether any natural mechanisms would possibly work if we cannot show that those mechanism actually happen (repeatability)?