Posted: Mar 09, 2010 3:59 pm
by OgreMkV
I've answered the question about whether I have read the paper. I am not going to post it in its entirety here. If you want to question it, then pay the money, read it and start debunking.

rainbow, let me be perfectly honest here. I don't think you are going to consider any evidence that supports abiogenesis. I think that you have made up your mind and are trying solely to discredit this body of work. Now, considering that all the papers Cali presented and the few additional papers I've presented have already gone through peer-review, the chances of you finding a mistake in them are slim to none.

Based on your previous post, I predict that even if you were presented with an experiment that started from base elements and resulted in a fully functioning protocell, you would thne claim "But how do you know, where you there?"

Abiogenesis is chemistry. I'll repeat this for you: chemistry happens. If the reactions can be shown to happen, then they can happen and did happen at some point. That is the point of all this research, to show that the reactions needed for inorganic compounds to become a living thing can happen.

Now, I'll move the rest of this over to the abiogenesis thread and let you continue your 'critique'.