Autocatalytic molecular processes have been synthesized.
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Designed, not natural.Second
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Neither you, nor anyone else has observed life coming from non-life in this manner. If you had, we would all know it, as that is the stuff that world-wide notoriety is made of. Third
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ The Ã¢â‚¬Å“organization of living systemsÃ¢â‚¬Â and the Ã¢â‚¬Å“origin of living systemsÃ¢â‚¬Â are two entirely different things.
Is there any reason why this could not happen in the wild?
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ it was designed, not natural.Second
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ It has never been observed in the wild. And, as my initial point made, if it were to have happened, it would Ã¢â‚¬Å“STILLÃ¢â‚¬Â be happening today. And not just as a design in a laboratory. Third
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Life from Non-life is simply illogical, irrational, and unscientific.
Bacteria break down organic (carbon-based) matter.
Do bacteria break down ALL organic (carbon-based) matter? Because, if that were the case, there would be no life as we know it today. It would just be bacteria breaking down ALL organic (carbon-based) matter!
It is inevitable that more adpated organisms would be more competitive than vulnerable newly-emerged self-replicators.
It is not Ã¢â‚¬Å“inevitableÃ¢â‚¬Â, it is presupposed! Again, if that were the case there would be no life as we know it today. It would just be bacteria breaking down ALL organic (carbon-based) matter!
I am agnostic, I haven't mentioned atheism.
Actually, if you read the OP, it is addressed to Ã¢â‚¬Å“Atheistic EvolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â. And it is to that which you are attempting to defend (within the context of this OP). Therefore, by definitional context, you are talking about (and therefore mentioning) atheism.
Agnostic literally means Ã¢â‚¬Å“no-knowledgeÃ¢â‚¬Â , which means you should be seeking knowledge, and not attempting to defend a stance that (within the context of this OP) is definitive
You do not need certainty to contemplate a possibility. The scientific method relies upon the drawing and testing of hypotheses.
It is possible that there are spotted geese on Mars, or a tea cup in orbit. But it is not logically, rationally or scientifically probable. In fact, statistically, it is impossible within the realm of probability. And yes, the scientific method does rely upon the drawing and testing of hypotheses. And it validates, or invalidates said hypotheses via inductively observable methodology.
Empirical science does not proceed by defending as Ã¢â‚¬Å“factÃ¢â‚¬Â those things which are not facts. Empirical science proceeds by testing>observing>testing some more> until it validates or renders invalid said hypotheses.
Every statement beyond scientifically validated Ã¢â‚¬Å“FactsÃ¢â‚¬Â, are purely speculation and faith based.