If abiogenesis is not proven scientifically, why are scientists pretending it is a fact?

Even god counts as abiogenisis as there was dust and then humans appeared. We are just trying to find out how it happened, and untill someone proves god exists, we are still looking for the answer

You seem to have a misunderstanding about the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence to support the creation hypothesis whatsoever.

On the other hand, abiogenesis has not been proven. It requires evidence to be proven, and scientists are searching for that evidence. In fact there is data from numerous experiments which suggest that under the right conditions life could arise from pools of complex chemicals.

But the reason why the creation hypothesis requires more evidence is because if life were created by something, then we would still need to discover how that creator came to be from non life. But this is uninteresting to scientists because no evidence has supported this theory. Face it, we know this is intended to prove that the god of the bible is the real god, but even if there were evidence in support of the creation hypothesis, there would still be no link to the theory of an abrahamic god.

Science requires that initial biases be discarded. Your desire to prove the existence of something you believe in for emotional reasons is hobbling your neocortex. There is no science without evidence. Go get some and then complain.

We know two things. First, we know that when the Earth orginally formed it was completely inhospitable to any form of life. The second is that we now know that life exists. From that we can conclude that something happened to bring about life on Earth.

We can determine what happened in one of two ways. One is the lazy way and the other one the scientific way. The lazy way is to not bother thinking about it and simply say god did it; that matter is cleared up.

The scientific way is to think about it and draw up hypothesis which are tested and can be falsified. Scientists find no shame in saying we don't know. I have said this numerous times in my responses on YA and shall say it again. If we knew the answer to everything we'd not need science. I'd find that simultaneously exciting and utterly disappointing. It'd be absolutely wonderful to know everything. But, equally that would make science redundant.

Scientists are working to discover how the first forms of life developed from the inanimate matter that was present. It's only a shame that more chemists aren't working on the problem at the answer will surely lie in chemistry.

In conclsuion: we know that life evolved on Earth. We don't know how it originally happened. This is being worked on by scientists. One day hopefully we'll discover the answer.

Abiogenesis is a fact. Even religion agrees that there was a time when there was no life and then there was life. That means that abiogenesis took place, doesn't matter if it was deep ocean vents, shallow pools or magic poofing.

There is no Theory of Abiogenesis yet, research is still ongoing on the varied possibilities of how abiogenesis took place.

It is a fact. NOBODY, SCIENTISTS OR FUNDAMENTALIST BELIEVES THAT LIFE EXISTED WHEN THE EARTH WAS FORMED. Thus life does exist on earth, thus abiogenesis is a FACT.

Creationists believe in a supernatural explanation but science demands that an explanation must be testable and falsifiable. Thus laboratory experiments continue to see what factors might lead to life. Most scientists believe that the origin of life is INEVITABLE, and the number of organic molecules we have detected in space supports that viewpoint.

In addition, consider this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/nasa-alie... "NASA Chief Scientist Ellen Stofan Predicts We'll Find Signs Of Alien Life Within 10 Years"

If you are a scientist and use a "goddidit" explanation for natural phenomena, you should be fired. The proper answer when a scientist doesn't know the explanation is... "I don't know but in the past we didn't know a lot more". It's not.... I don't know therefore it supports a supernatural explanation. Would you be satisfied with a medical doctor that said... I don't know what you are suffering from so it must be God..... or would you want him/her to consult an expert or do further testing?

Use your critical thinking skills here.

Abiogenesis is a scientific theory

A scientific theory is a model or description which fits every single known fact, every item of evidence, every observation and every calculation without exception. It is recognised that one single item of evidence which does not fit the theory will cause it to collapse.

In other words, a scientific theory is a close to being a 100% guaranteed fact as any self-respecting scientist will ever admit to. And this includes Abiogenesis.

Please now provide the evidence, observations and facts supporting creationism. Note that a big book of biblical bullshit which states that whales are fish would not be recognised as scientifically reliable.

We do not assume that life evolved from non-living matter. That is because science has determined that the earth is only 4.5 billion years old, and the oldest rocks in which fossil life has been found is only 3.2 billion years old. That means the earth did not have any life forms for the first billion years or more of its existence. That is why scientists conclude that life must have evolved here on earth from non-living matter.