Your latest post reminds me of the spoiled child who takes his ball and goes home in a petulant snit because the other children refuse to play by his rules. I find it amazing how often creationists engage me in conversation, trying to convince me that their POV is right, but when I point out how their POV is flawed, they get angry, hurl a few insults, then refuse to continue any further discussion. You are running true to this form here.
One piece of advice: learn the difference between a pejorative statement and a simply statement of fact. What I said above are simple statements of factual observations. If you choose to take them as insults, that's probably because the truth hurts too much to ignore.
"I'll leave it for someone who is in the 'philosophy business' to answer you, if they wish."
You claimed to be more knowledgeable about philosophy than science; that's why I brought this up in connection with our discussion. Are you now saying that you are not?
By the way, I noticed that you cut out the entire portion on Hegel, which demonstrates the folly of philosophers trying to dictate to science what constitutes physical reality.
"Abiogenesis(1) having been a process that (possibly) operated in the past can, of course, never be either verified or refuted by science."
Why, because it occurred in the past? Ridiculous. By that logic no murder could ever be solved if there were no witnesses, since (by the perspective of the detective) it occurred in the past. Past processes can be verified based on the evidence they leave behind, or if peripheral evidence demonstrates that the process was highly likely; it can be refuted based on the evidence left behind by other processes, or if peripheral evidence demonstrates that the process is highly unlikely.
"Abiogenesis(2) may, indeed, someday be verified; it can never be refuted."
It has been verified; but it could have been refuted if a mechanism that made mechanistic abiogenesis impossible was discovered instead.
"That's sort of basic to the science I know. (1) You cannot prove a negative...."
No, you can't prove something didn't happen, but you can prove that it is impossible for something to happen. So far, no one has been able to provide any evidence that either historical abiogenesis or mechanistic abiogenesis is impossible.
"...and (2) you really cannot 'prove' a theory -- although you can falsify one, and you can establish one well enough to call it a 'fact,' (such as the sun will rise again tomorrow morning)."
You can't prove a theory in the way that logic or mathematics defines proof, but science does not define proof in that same way. Instead, as you pointed out, science instead tries to verify or refute theories using evidence. I admit that I have used the term "proof" carelessly without properly defining it (though I had assumed you would guess I meant verify/refute since you knew I was a scientist and you know what scientists mean when they say proof). However, mechanistic abiogenesis has been verified to the point that we know it can happen; the question is, what were the past conditions of the biosphere, which would then determine which mechanisms were the most important?
By the way, historical abiogenesis is no theory, any more than historical evolution is a theory. Both are established fact. Admittedly there is more _obvious_ evidence supporting the fact of historical evolution than there is supporting the fact of historical abiogenesis, but no biologist or biochemist doubts that historical abiogenesis occurred.
"This answer tells me rather more about your mindset than about biomolecules. However, I'll let that thread drop."
Typical hit-and-run tactic. Also, most creationists also resort to the "mindset" claim when the evidence is stacked against them. Tell me, is that the same mindset that leads me to believe that the earth is round, that the sun is at the center of the solar system, that gravity keeps the planets in orbit around the sun, that fusion is the source of the sun's power? It better be, because everything I have stated here are scientific facts, just as my statement that biomolecules are found exclusively in biological systems. If you believe otherwise, give me evidence to the contrary; otherwise leave my mindset out of it.
By the way, there is one non-biological source for certain biomolecules, and that is meteorites. However, I hadn't mentioned it before now because I assumed we were talking about terrestrial sources. Also, it doesn't help you much, because these meteorites obtained their biomolecules from the solar nebula, which in turn created them by abiogenetic processes using dust grains as catalysts. (The radio spectra of simple amino acids have been detected in interstellar gas clouds.)
"I wrote: 'And if we define the word abiogenesis differently, using it to refer to, explicitly, the assumed process which operated to develop **life from non-life**, then the two experiments may, or may not, have anything to do with it.' [emphasis added] And you, mysteriously, answered:..."
No mystery; you insist upon defining abiogenesis as "life from non-life"; as I have continuously pointed out that is not the proper scientific definition. I can't help it if you won't believe me.
"Well, you don't accept my definition even for the sake of discussion,..."
It's wrong for a scientific discussion, which you say you won't engage in, and I won't engage in a philosophical discussion that seeks to impose onto physical reality a point of view that is demonstrably false, so I cannot accept your definition.
"...even though it is used that way in many places,..."
Which is irrelevant as to what the proper scientific definition of a scientific phenomenon should be.
"...and you don't accept Brian Harper's offer to use other terminology."
Which are also not valid scientific definitions, and so are also irrelevant.
"As I pointed out once before, I consider it rude and uncivil to affix a label to anyone who does not claim it. You have done this to me twice."
I understand if you find the term offensive, but you do not believe that life can be explained in materialist terms alone, so be definition you are a vitalist, whether you accept it or not. I am not trying to put you down; on the contrary, I'm trying to get you to honestly investigate the true source of your beliefs. I have no problem if you want to believe that life is more than metabolism, but to believe that and deny the fundamental philosophy that believe is based on is self-delusional.
"Thank you for the definition. It does not have anything much to do with our disagreement, IMHO, but it is tangentially interesting none the less."
It's not a definition _per sey_, but it has a great deal to do with our discussion. You want to define abiogenesis as life from non-life (in the philosophical sense); I was simply pointing out that the philosophical usage of life far more strongly reflects modern biological reality than it does vitalism. So if philosophers see life as metabolism, then your philosophical definition of abiogenesis becomes metabolic systems from non-metabolic systems, which is essentially the proper scientific definition. Without realizing it, we have been arguing over the same scientific definitions all along. Personally I think that is a great break-through.
"It is apparent to me that you have 0 interest in exploring a subject from any POV than your own. That means we are about done."
Explain to me how what I said was incorrect; then explain why a 130 year old definition, that has been superceded by new evidence and new philosophical thought, should take precedence over a more modern, more accurate definition.
By the way, yours' is a standard creationist tactic when the debate does not go their way. Do you want to act like a petulant child or a rational adult?
"That's both a 'silly' statement as well as a pejorative."
It's also true, otherwise you would explain why it's not instead of pouting and ending the discussion in a huff.
"My friend, you doth claim far too much in that statement."
Again, how is what I said wrong? Justify your position; don't just break off in a snit.
Kevin L. O'Brien