No, what is dead certainty is only that life is present. The suggestion that is it was created either by Gods or spontaneous abiogenesis out of non-life is but a conjecture. Not anything given. Vast difference. Your proposition is: once upon a time there was a time when life was totally absent in every location in the Universe. What do you support such a proposition with? Nothing but blah-blah-blah.
Life is a system of death-avoiding machines, Percy. Your suggestion that the putative ancient proteins were less of an intricate affair implies that death could be more merciful at any place and time than it is known to be presently. That is, requiring fewer tricks to cheat. Is that possible though? The cat thinks not. Full intelligence is needed to do the job. So life must be smartly organised of necessity. Always.
It means little outside of context. Which is the trouble with the concept of origin of life. For it's not just about inert chemicals self-assembling into living motions, it's about inert atoms creating death out of nothing. The concept is likely to be not even wrong.
That's circular, Larn. Errors imply the correct grammar pre-existing. The only rule in the grammar of life is death avoidance though. Where do you get that from? Death is not an acquired habit, it is inherited. Origin of life therefore is a silly creationist concept. Life is not to be created, it can only continue.
No, an ocean is self-sustaining like any inert process, a virus avoids death. It's smart. It's got memory better than yours. That means it can initiate an action as soon as it meets the host. That is the principle divide between the alive and the inert. Anything inert is always one step behind something else either alive or equally inert. Needs to be pulled. What is alive keeps abreast of all else. It's not the question of individual survival. All individual life dies sooner or later. It's a question of memory and being a part of a system. Note that I said a system of death escaping machines. Lonely proto-cell of one kind is impossible. So it has to be no simpler than that. Therefore the alive does not evolve from the inert. The two can only co-exist. Always.
Irrelevant what you are thinking when fucking your girl. When she'll dump you, you will be in deadly pain to illustrate what I say. A point in time is a point in space. That goes in every relative direction. So which direction was your putative point where life was absent? You again parrot the bigbangist nonsense. Start thinking for yourself. Parroting is not anything young and fresh
Which past? Learn relativity and proper physics for a change. If B and C are equidistant in time from A may not mean B and C are contemporary objects. They might be billions light years in each other's past. Inflation and expansion don't cut it as an excuse as those are magical explanations. Space is not an object so it cannot move. Sorry.
Crackpot about biology? What is that, Inadequate? Crackpots and quackademics are just ad hominids the human monkeys hurl at each other for fun. Irrelevant otherwise. The things are the one and only way they are. The rest is impossible but anybody is welcome to present their case and try to tell which is which and why. That is all. If the big bunk and abiogenesis were in the stars to have happened nothing any one says can change that. If not then, sorry Inadequate, toeing the party-line, will not help it either.
Sorry, you fail to grasp it. The universal past is absolutely impossible because no universal linear time of your naive bigbangist conception is possible for the reasons of elementary geometry and relativity of simultaneity. I'll try to explain slowly for the last time before I give up on you lot. Distance in time cosmologically is the same as distance in space. Direction is though strictly relative to an arbitrary location. Simple. Draw yourself a circle or sphere to illustrate my point about A, B and C. B and C could be at the same distance both in time and space from A while the distance separating B and C from each other again both in time and space may vary depending on the angle the lines connecting B and C to A meet at. Time is relative. No bang is possible for that reason alone.
Abiogenesis? Simple, Larn. Am I wrong in betting on you lot here all believing that life on Earth originated from either the primordial soup of Oparin-Haldane, hot vents spouting RNA world molecules or by riding on crystals, ice and such like. In any case life from non-life which putative process is called abiogenesis? Moreover, my educated guess is that ya'll believe the process to be absolutely necessary since no life can possibly survive in the quark-gluon soup of the big bunk which you also hold for an indisputable fact of nature. That's how a fancy cosmology puts constraints on biology, by the way.
Calculating probabilities is just a fun mathematical game. Both sides cheat: one ups the ante, the other downs it while none has a real clue what the ante was to begin with. The issue is to be decided on conceptual merits only. It's irrelevant what are the probabilities in Hoyle's example of tornado sweeping a junkyard to result in a brand new Boeing. The point to decide is whether tornadoes and junk ever interact in such a way as to produce a plane. And the issue is, I reiterate, creating death out of nothing and living memory out of the inert oblivion. If that is possible, the conditions of such happening must be specified and the whole thing must be tested. If not or all the tests fail, then the conclusion is that life is not to be created but can only exist in parallel with inert matter. Always.
It's about whether abiogenesis is obligatory or not. If the question when is cosmologically a relative where, then the question of ultimate origin of anything is a wrong one to ask. Impossible to pin down. Aren't you a bit on the simple side? Or just playing dumb, Larn? What I say is elementary geometry. You can verify it easily with everyday analogies, circles, triangles and stuff. The only chance for my reasoning to be off is for space to become a real and not a paper substance and start to be able to inflate and expand faster than the velocity of light. For real. Can that be? Would you bet your pants on it? In cold British weather? Or should you start paying attention to what the neglected panspermia theorists are saying?