[ezion]

I never implied that in my comment.

[nicoco]

OK, so what is your favorite explanation then? You seem to imply /something/, maybe just be explicit about it?

[Scarblac]

In his defence, just that abiogenesis sounds impossible to him doesn't necessarily mean that he has an alternative explanation.

[nicoco]

Agreed. But that sounded like creationist dog whistling to me, and I'm curious why OP doesn't want to be explicit about what he thinks. Being explicit usually leads to improving the quality of a discussion IMHO.

[pfdietz]

You are exhibiting a deplorable behavior here, equating questioning of a scientific hypothesis with creationism dogwhistling.

When did asking "how do we know" become forbidden in science? Convention OoL is looking entirely too dogmatic and religious for my taste.

[jlparker]

Just to respond to your first point, I don't think anyone here is "equating questioning the scientific hypothesis with creationism dogwhistling".

People are calling out Ezion for dogwhistling because of his writing style. Comments written in a glib manner, with superficial counterarguments presented as gotchas, that is suggestive of dogwhistling.

[pfdietz]

The alternative is that some exponentially unlikely step is needed, which would imply we're not going to see another independent abiogenesis event anywhere in the observable universe.

[nicoco]

(replying here because too deeply nested to answer on the comment)

> When did asking "how do we know" become forbidden in science?

What has been forbidden exactly and are you sure we are "in science" here?

> You are exhibiting a deplorable behavior here, equating questioning of a scientific hypothesis with creationism dogwhistling.

Let me sum this up. Asking "how do we know?" with a hidden agenda is OK, but asking "what do you have in mind exactly?" is "deplorable behavior" and should be... "forbidden"?

OK, troll, bye bye.

[pfdietz]

It's sad, but not really unexpected, that you responded that way. Cult members don't realize they're in cults.