Let me try again.
Possibility is all we need in order to posit it as a route for abiogenesis to occur naturally. Of course we would then continue research into chemical interactions and environments and may one day even discover definite possible pathways, rather than theoretical possible pathways.
So we agree on this point.
The difference lies wholly with the evidence. We have many complex chemicals, we have many complex environments, and we have a definite sign that life exists. Thus chemicals and environments interacted in some way to form life.
Ah, but I disagree. How can you call this evidence? This is only circumstantial. You have to have some concrete evidence that links all of this information DIRECTLY to the timeframe that you're talking about. Right now, we don't have a single scrap of evidence of WHAT complex environment was ACTUALLY at the time, only speculation. We don't have any evidence of any of these molecules or mixtures being around at the proper times, because these things don't fossilize. What proper, true, non-speculative evidence do we have about what was actually happening at that time? I haven't seen it so far. I'm just starting at this. But I haven't seen it so far.
Circumstantial evidence just isn't convincing enough. Even creos can get that. All we have is enough motivation to say that it's possible. No evidence to say that it actually happened.
Natural routes require only what we have seen so far and so is logically the best explanation for abiogenesis (and then speciation).
ID routes require something else altogether. That requires an intelligence which we have never encountered, nor have evidence of, unless we are to circularly accept life as the sign that an ID existed to make life.
To me, this is pretty much the principle of parsimony, which I mentioned as the only real reason to choose ambiogenesis over creationist accounts (well that, and the fact that so many creationist accounts are so ... internally inconsistent).
But the thing about the principle of parsimony is that... it's a principle about theory-building, and not about 'truth.' It's better theory to make these moves, but in no way is that evidence for the truth. The evidence for both remains the same--circumstantial only.
The amazing complexity of life or chemical interactions does not add towards evidence that an ID existed, as the complexity may have more to do with our current lack of knowledge than what is actually there.
No doubt about that!
Given all of this there is an obvious gap between the credibility or probability of natural abiogenesis, and artifical abiogenesis.
I don't like the word probability. If you ever hear me use the word probability when NOT doing a calculation or explanation of some mathematics, please yell at me.
Probability in this sentence, to me, seems like... your 'gut feeling.' If there's one thing we can learn from this site, it's this: when there's simply circumstantial evidence going both ways, people's gut feeling of what is credible and probable are simply divergent.
Personally, my gut says AMBIOGENESIS. But gut is not science. The science, for what I've seen so far, is too weak for all the strong claims I feel I see around here.
I hope I've done a good job expressing myself. Thanks for taking the time to read.
Ben
™ Version 4.2