Sandy Hook

Is it mentioned in the Bible?  Because that will do in lieu of video evidence.

abiogenisis is a faulty theory and it is probably good you do not invest much time in it.

And you know this how? I'll start looking to you for confirmation of scientific theory when you start looking to me for confirmation of religious doctrine.

You're deliberately missing the point. There was no cell. There were no string of molecules. You don't have mountains of proof - you have mountains of circumstantial evidence to support a theory.

You're confusing abiogenesis with evolution again. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, evolution is a proven theory with large quantities of empirical evidence supporting it.

The one proof you demand of creationists - is the one proof you cannot produce in support of a very old theory. Where are the skeletal links to support your data? You constantly tell me more time is needed to find them - though you've been searching for over a century. The scientific community that believes this theory has never had luck finding even ONE real skeletal proof - and you say I am the one with a religious bias?

I don't constantly tell you any such thing; in fact, I've never told you that at all. This is just another straw man that you're trying to set up. The single skeleton that proves everything will never be found, because a single skeleton can't prove evolution. An example: It is known from records that the average height of humans has increased over the last century. This is an example of evolution by sexual selection, but try proving it with a single skeleton. You can't. I can see why you'd like to set this as a standard for proving evolution, it's an impossible goal to meet. The only way you can learn anything is by comparison of different fossil evidence. Now tens of thousands of examples of this type of evidence do exist.Sexual selection is one type of evolution that I mentioned previously. The other was genetic mutation. An excellent example of this is the Ashfall Fossil Beds in Nebraska. Twelve million years ago, a large volcanic eruption believed to have originated in southwestern Idaho began dumping volcanic ash across the state of Nebraska. In most places, the ash is no more than a foot thick, but in an area 140 miles northwest of Omaha, the ash blanketed the area with a layer ten feet thick. The animals exposed to this died slowly, and many of their remains have been found at what once would have been a watering hole. The fossils there are layered, the small animals that would have succumbed more easily at the bottom, up to the largest animals, a type of rhinoceros, at the top. This occurred at a time when the plains of Nebraska were changing from forest to grasslands, and it provides a unique snapshot of the evolution that was ongoing at the time. One of the species of animals there is a horse, caught in the act of evolving from having three toes, which provided it with stability in the soft ground of the forest, to having one toe, which was an advantage on the open and hard grasslands. There are fossils there of the same species having one toe, three toes, and individuals having one main two and two vestigial toes on the side. Examine any one of these fossils by themselves and they prove little, but all of them together show a lot. The evidence is there, and it is abundant, you just refuse to look at it because your 'benevolent daddy in the sky' theory requires you to have selective sight.

But don't you think it a bit strange that you tell me life as we know it can't live on Mercury or Venus.

It's not strange at all. Biological processes require water in its liquid form. Large, complex life forms can evolve to where they can utilize water in it's frozen form by melting it with body heat, but in order to evolve to that point, their predecessors need liquid water. Mercury and Venus do not have liquid water.

If life is so easily established why haven't we seen a different life-form develop on another planet?

This is the only planet with liquid water.

If life is just an ever increasingly complex string of molecules - why didn't molecules develop and form in order to support life on EACH planet?

The support of biological processes requires that this occur in an area with liquid water. This is the only planet with liquid water on it.

What is so special about Earth-like planets?

They have liquid water on them.

From your explanation life just happens without abiogenesis - so why is it so hard for it to take hold in other environments?

I never said that life "just happens without abiogenesis," I said that it is one of several possible explanations for the origin of life, and has nothing to do with the evolution of that life that has occurred since its origin.

Why do you not see life teaming throughout the inner solar system?

The other planets of the inner solar system do not have liquid water on them. This one does.

Why is it you offer that you've not visited other planets so you don't know if there's life there - then take me further out into the galaxy to find stars that can't support life "as we know it". Why do you limit the conversation to life as we know it?

Looking for life in environments we know can support it seems more logical than looking for life in places that we don't know can support it. Doesn't it to you? I mentioned Proxima Centauri because it is the closest star, and the Alpha Centauri system because they are the next closest stars. The point is that if we're going to find other intelligent life, we're going to have to go one hell of a long way to do it. We don't have that kind of technology, we're not even close. This is a direct contradiction to the Fermi paradox that you mentioned. Something that is trillions of miles away at best is not likely to be "obvious." This however does not mean that it is not common. The galaxy is a big place with many, many environments suitable for the evolution of intelligent life. But with the closest one of those possible places trillions of miles away and the rest of them a lot further than that, expecting it to be obvious is a little disingenuous.

Your explanation posits that life took hold here as a string of molecules - here - and ONLY here - in this solar system.

No, it doesn't. The abiogenesis hypothesis says that DNA replication began as a string of molecules. I never even endorsed abiogenesis, I said that it is one of several possible explanations for the origin of life, but has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life, it never attempts too. The theory of evolution never even addresses the origin of life. They are separate issues. You keep trying to tie them together so that you can use the strawman of origin to attack evolution. As for me saying that anything happened "- here - and ONLY here -," well, you just pulled that out of your butt, because I never said anything like that.

Why? Again, why didn't more hardy molecule strings develop martians that had the same access to development as Earth?

If Mars had liquid water, it was only for a short time (on the evolutionary scale). Higher lifeforms breathe oxygen. That oxygen is created by microbes converting carbon dioxide and creating an atmosphere of it. This takes billions of years, time that Mars didn't have, and Mars is incapable of retaining much of an atmosphere anyway. This was squarely addressed in my other post.

What is insane is that evolutionist insist that their theory is sound science but deny that this scientific dynamic can work on other, closer planets - those nearby.

"Other, closer planets" don't have liquid water on them. I'm hoping that you pick up on this soon.

Why do your theories only work on Earth?

Earth is the only planet in this solar system that has liquid water on it. There are undoubtedly numerous planets in other solar systems with liquid water.

My freinds that believe in the religion of evolutionary science cannot answer this question. They get angry with me for not understanding their science - but they eventually admit that the theory should hold true anywhere it is applied.

Forgive me for believing that friends of yours are less than a bastion of scientific principles.

If organic sprang from inorganic on Earth - it should be just as possible for other strands of molecules on other planets within our solar system to have had the same dynamics.

The key component of those dynamics is liquid water. This planet has it, other planets in the solar system don't.

To tell me that, given enough time (and ONLY on Earth, so far) a strand of molecules can band together and form a man that can produce a work like Shakespear - for the sole purpose of enjoyment - is completely lacking of all good, or common, sense! It is like trying to tell me that if a wind blows through a junkyard long enough it will assemble a '57 Chevy....preposterous.

That is preposterous. Totally absurd. It's like saying that man sprang up totally formed out of the mud. You really love to set up a strawman and then argue against it, don't you? The theory of evolution doesn't say anything like that. The only thing that strand of molecules would be likely to form is another strand of molecules that were the same or similar. Your use of this poorly constructed analogy just goes to illustrate that you lack an understanding of the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.The evidence is there if you choose to look at it. If your superstitious beliefs require that you ignore it, then keep praying to whatever god happens to be in vogue at the time. History is full of gods. I'm sure yours is just as good as any of the others. Be sure to indoctrinate your children while they are still too young to examine it with a rational mind, lest your religion die out.