No, I'm saying it is not unusual (in fact it is typical) for existing theories to still be in the stage of development and overhaul - that's the way of science, no theory is every rock solid. If you look at Einstein's theory of general relativity for instance, it underwent ~10 significant refinements before it reached the form we know it in today, and even then it took decades to be experimentally confirmed. The theories that are well known to the general public (e.g., gravity) are in an extremely privileged position, having been confirmed again and again. Most theories are in a state of flux or development, and abiogenesis is no different.

I'm not certain if your question was directed specifically at <whatthefat> or not, but my answer would be this:

~~~~

Yes.

However, one needs to understand that 'theory' is one of those overworked words that can mean different things in different situations.

==COMMON THEORY
This is the familiar, casual, everyday usage that just means "reasoned explanation".

<<This, IMO, is the correct understanding of 'theory' with respect to abiogenesis.>>

== SCIENTIFIC THEORY
In the field of science, there is also a 'scientific theory'. Although this is also a reasoned explanation, it is one that has passed the rigorous steps of the scientific method.

In order for an theory to be scientific, it need not only to explain the obersved facts, it must be testable. It must make predictions by which it could be falsified. The more "daring" the prediction, the better. That is, if the prediction calls for a result that would be completely unexpected if the theory were false, then it's a very strong test. It undergo peer review, and successfully pass tests for a good long time. Even so, since it depends on empirical observations, a scientific theory is never considered to be 'proven' -- even the best theory is provisional -- until some potential future observation undermines it.

Even though a scientific theory may serve as our best explanation for observed facts, we don't *know* that the observed facts came about according as the theory proposes. So, for example, even if a scientific theory for abiogenesis emerges (it hasn't yet), it doesn't prove that life actually emerged from nonlife as proposed by that abiogenesis scientific theory. It would merely be an the best natural explanation that we know of, and science will go forward from there.

Well, now you're just being obstinate. :-(

You know perfectly well that something complex is best understood by breaking into smaller distinct units of understanding, and each of those units can be likewise divided further.

Very complex things (consider your computer or house for example) really cannot be properly understood any other way.

Who mentioned 'indistinct' units?

Try to understand your computer without considering in termes of its distinct parts.

<OhioChessFan: I think I have it now. Any theory of life must be observable, unless we really don't mean a theory in the normal sense. In that case, if someone calls you on using the word theory in a non-normal sense, it is fair to accuse them of not understanding what the word means.>

I think you're trying to convince me that it pointless to try to explain anything to you.

We're not even debating science and religion anymore -- just English terminology. Yes, English *can* be confusing, but you seem intent on being confused, even though most people can understand these terms with little trouble.

Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.”>

He then said to Simon Peter a second time,

<“Simon, son of John, do you love me?”

Simon Peter answered him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”>

He said to him the third time,

<“Simon, son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time,

“Do you love me?” and he said to him,

“Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.”

The paper said genetic engineering can do good but acts on "a very fragile terrain."

"It's all about combining courage with caution," it said.

After having my intelligence impugned over and over for the past month for not understanding what the word "theory" means, to have this new idea that we weren't really discussing a "theory" when using the word "theory" doesn't sit too well.>

and all my being, bless his holy name.

Bless the LORD, O my soul,

and forget not all his benefits.

<The Lord has established his throne in heaven.

so surpassing is his kindness toward those who fear<respect> him.

As far as the east is from the west,

so far has he put our transgressions from us.

<The Lord has established his throne in heaven.

It's not fine. Here we are how far along and that is the first time that distinction has been affirmed? How many quotes from scientists should I line up that abiogenesis is a theory explaining how life came from nonlife? Here's one for starters:

and his kingdom rules over all.

Bless the LORD, all you his angels,

you mighty in strength, who do his bidding.

<The Lord has established his throne in heaven.

While the people were migrating <in the east>,

they came <upon a valley in the land of Shinar> and settled there.

<They said to one another,

“Come, let us mold bricks and harden them with fire>.”

They used bricks for stone, <and bitumen for mortar>.

<Then> they said, “Come, let us <build ourselves a city

and a tower with its top in the sky>,

and so <make a name for ourselves>;

otherwise we shall be scattered all over the earth.”

<<<<<The LORD came down to see the city and the tower

that the people had built.

<<<<Then the LORD said: “If now, while they are one people,

all speaking the same language,

they have started to do this,

nothing will later stop them from doing whatever they presume to do.

<<<Let us then go down there and confuse their language,

so that one will not understand what another says.”

<<Thus the LORD scattered them from there all over the earth,

and they stopped building the city.

"That is the subject of abiogenesis theory (also referred to as origin(s) of life science). Abiogenesis is basically a hybrid biochemical/geochemical explanation for the origin of life from non-living materials.">

You make it sound as if there has been no effort made to explain it to you. I've explained that abiogenesis is NOT a scientific theory a number of times, and so has <whatthefat> (see his May 1st post that you quoted for example).

Scientists (and other people who take the time to understand science and its terminology) are not confused by the different ways 'theory' is used.

In the same way, mathemematicians will use the word 'theory' in the sense that is specific to their field, but that doesn't mean they are prevented from using 'theory' it its commonplace sense.

Then the LORD called to him and said,

“Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob;

tell the Israelites:

You have seen for yourselves how I treated the Egyptians

and how I bore you up on eagle wings

and brought you here to myself.

Therefore, if you hearken to my voice and keep my covenant,

<You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation.>

That is what you must tell the Israelites.”

So Moses went and summoned the elders of the people.

When he set before them

all that the LORD had ordered him to tell them,

the people all answered together,

“Everything the LORD has said, we will do.”

On the morning of the third day

all the people in the camp trembled.

But Moses led the people out of the camp to meet God,

and they stationed themselves at the foot of the mountain.

Mount Sinai was all wrapped in smoke,

for the LORD came down upon it in fire.

The smoke rose from it as though from a furnace,

and the whole mountain trembled violently.

The trumpet blast grew louder and louder, while Moses was speaking,