Well, I'm thinking of people like Oro, Szostak, Fox ... it's ridiculous to say that there's been no new data because there've been no successful experiments. As Matt P pointed out, there's a whole journal devoted to studies in this field. If they're not publishing new data, what are they publishing --- knitting patterns?
I guess you could start with Fox, S. W.; Dose, K. (1977). "Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life"; or you could look at the experiments detailed in Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. Do you have any scientific critique of the peer-reviewed papers published in that journal?
Percy, They found more amino acids. most all needed for life, I think. Unfortunately, that does not qualify as life. Additionally, it does not qualify as life. Now that leaves the question, What is life?
Oh, I'll do that one. Life is any collection of molecules that can cause their own synthesis by surface catalysis.
Your turn. What is life? Please note that you need a definition that incorporates both bacteria and God, and I have never seen any creationist supply one.
Well yes, you are. You can't possibly be right about whether people have been doing research in this field, and doing experiments, and publishing data. That is a fact so plain that it would be difficult even for a creationist to deny it.
I believe I have added to that what I wanted to say. It is not a contradiction. The extensions to M-U, I would not consider new.
Ah, right, although new experiments have been performed, and new data published, you wouldn't "consider" these to be new experiments and new data, and you wouldn't "consider" their existence to contradict a statement that there have been no new experiments and no new data.
It's going to be very difficult to talk to you then. If you don't "consider" facts to be facts ... you might be a creationist.
I need incorporate bacteria ONLY if I believe in evolution, which I do not.
Uh, no, you need to incorporate bacteria if you think they're alive.
And, no. I don’t have to incorporate God into this. Since I do not know why you want it to be so.
Well, creationists usually claim that God is alive. (And, of course, dead people too.) So it would be nice if one of them just once would provide a definition of life under which this would be true. Is God "an organism that can metabolize on its own"? Not according to conventional ideas of the Godhead. So ...