Why? You are setting a "requirement" which cannot be met, which is the only reason that you are "requiring" it. It is a "requirement" in the sense that it the only way that non-naturally occuring abiogenesis gets a look in. If/when life is found on Europa or one of the other Jovian moons, natural abiogenesis will be proved. The precise manner on which it first occurred on earth is something that we may never know. That doesn't make it impossible, or even unlikely.
Because it would show that life has emerged independently in two places in the same solar system, showing that the emergence of life is relatively simple given the right conditions. Of course, it is also possible that a playful God created life on Europa on the eighth day, just for a laugh. That kind of silliness, as I have been saying for some time, is unfalsifiable.
No, experiments have not failed in this. What experiments are you referring to? No experiment has attempted to recreate life. There have been plenty of experiments exploring the parameters within which it is possible that life was created. They have been, and continue to be successful.
I say again, which experiments do you mean?
Quite.
Star birth has been simulated in labs.
Yes, you can say things here without repercussions as long as you follow the rules. Someone here says you're lying, so what. You haven't lost your reputation, job, or anything else in real life. If you can't handle pushback then walk away.
You walk away. You are the one whose skin is so thin you start crying whenever I merely question the validity of your evidence. If you provide 10 more examples of fake evidence I will attack those too. You confuse me questioning your evidence with me personally attacking you. I am a positive atheist posting arguments that god does not exist on a christian apologetics website. I don't need your advice on how to organize an argument nor how to be "competent enough". If you want to see a good brawl read the first 15 pages of "Hypostatic Union Is Impossible".
As I expected, you have no interest in discussion but are just looking for brawls. Since you are incapable of making sound arguments, all you do is attack and misrepresent people while disingenuously claiming to attack evidence.
What would we have a discussion about? You want to post false evidence and then discuss it as if it were real. Shall we discuss your unknown vague implications about things? In case you missed it this website is called Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. This board is for debates about theism vs atheism. I suggest you take your Gagliano/Verney/Hoffman stuff to the general science board, maybe the people their won't check wether any of your evidence is actually real. Good luck.
A brawl is simply a topic that is hotly debated. I happen to like a good vociferous debate. If you don't, stay out of it and stop criticizing people who do. Maybe you and vbj can get together, wear suits, use words like "connoisseur", have tea and crumpets, and discuss the finer points of the consciousness of rocks.
Apparently you are as thin skinned and frail as vbj. Someone merely disagreeing with you, you interpret as an insult. That is why I suggested you and he get together for tea and crumpets. Maybe you can put a vase of flowers on the table and say non-controversial things to each other.
Thanks. I do the best I can.
I don't like them either. Too dry.
Just the delicate ones. I'm going to have to ask you to watch what you say. What you are saying could conceivably, under certain circumstances, from certain points of view, be perceived as mildly controversial, and then someone is going to start whining again.