Posted: Apr 13, 2010 1:03 pm
by byofrcs
rainbow wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
When you are asking for "fossils" then you are asking for something from an undefined grey area of organic chemistry dating somewhere about 3.5 Billion years ago. The onus is on you to first identify which pigeon-hole that you want evidence for.

Where did I say I want evidence?
I said there isn't any.
If you agree that there is no evidence of Abiogenesis in the fossil record, then we've nothing more to ponder on this matter.

However if you disagree, then the onus in on you to present the evidence.

You did say ...."Please present some fossil evidence of Abiogenesis." What would that even look like then ?.

We're pretty confident that there were no living things immediately after the formation of the Earth and we're pretty confident that there are living things on Earth today so we unless we can define something as the "non-living-living", which is mutually exclusive, it is impossible to give a fossil per se but it will be possible to show the pathways between the non-living and living.

This is what these papers are addressing. They form the fossil evidence, albeit incomplete at this time.