[EnergyAmy]

They're not actually interested in the answer. It's like asking "If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?!" You explain what a common ancestor is but it doesn't matter because they've already moved on to another bad faith question and aren't listening.

There's real interesting questions to ask here, you're right. They're not getting asked in this thread, though.

[pfdietz]

This is a convenient excuse for not answering the question. No, science doesn't excuse you if you decide the question wasn't answered in good faith. That's because if your theory cannot answer a question like that, it's a bad theory, regardless of the motivation of the person asking the question.

What's I see here is people defending conventional OoL as a kind of quasi-religion, with dogma that does not need to be experimentally demonstrated and must not be questioned. I treat all religions with disdain, including yours.

[deadbeeves]

This isn't a place to make formal scientific inquiry, and that's not the way to ask scientific questions formally. The way to do that is to write a paper to a journal citing findings that appear to contradict whatever hypothesis is in dispute.

If you ask a question about science to a random person on the Internet they're entirely within their right to say "I don't think you actually want to learn something you don't know, I think you're asking your question to put forward an argument that I've seen many people before you put forward and that I'm tired of hearing, and therefore I'm not going to humor you by answering your question", until you convince them that talking to you isn't a complete waste of time.

[pfdietz]

Let me make it clear: OoL science has not answered the question of OoL. There are enormous gaping holes in the story. Asking about these holes, or pointing them out, is allowed. Pretending OoL has filled in these holes when it has not, and bullying those who ask the questions, questioning their motives, is not.

[deadbeeves]

First of all, we will probably never know how life originally started, because it was a process at the molecular level that happened billions of years ago. Even if we found a chemical chain that leads to life, we would have no way to know if that particular one is the one that led to current life.

Second, anyone can ask any questions they like and anyone can answer or not any questions they like. No one is obligated to engage with you just because you asked a question. Actually, if someone tells you that they think you're asking your question in bad faith that's a courtesy they're having towards you, because they're giving you the chance to convince them that you're actually being sincere. They could have simply ignored you and gone on with their day.

[akasakahakada]

Asking questuon without cost and put nothing into effort to work toward an answer is not doing science.

[EnergyAmy]

You're dismissing the scientific process that you claim to support by calling it a "quasi-religion". It's not, you're tilting at windmills, and creationists don't have anything interesting to offer. Here's a great resource when you're ready to learn:

https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Sorry to be short, but you're doing a very aggressive enlightened centrist bit. Chill out for a bit, and read through the above when you've got some time.

Also, the question was answered in this thread. If you weren't trying to do so much name calling, you'd probably have read the answer and been informed.

[pfdietz]

Garbage and nonsense, sir. The quasi-religion is claiming certainty when the science has not delivered anything close to it and rejecting attempts to question this false certainty. I see this all too often in OoL and SETI discussions.

[glitchc]

This is such a great resource, thank you for sharing! I'm going to bookmark it.