: That's exactly what I said. It is one explanation developed to best explain
: what we observe. An explanation for a proposed event that took place in
: the past, which is neither observable nor repeatable, let alone testable.
: Many adhere to that theory as the only plausible theory of the original of
: the universe as we know it.
: If someone were to present some other origin of the universe, in any
: fashion, that did not include the Big Bang, would you listen? Or would you
: dismiss it? If the latter, then your default stance is that the Big Bang
: happened, and no one can postulate otherwise. That's dogmatic assertion of
: an unprovable axiom.

: I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about what we can rightly
: consider "observed". You and I have an understand of what we
: see. We consider it observed because everyone shares the same experience,
: and it's a matter of practicality. You are avoiding the point: What we
: have not observed - to the degree of experimentation and observation with
: our own eyes and experiences - we can only attempt to explain by forming a
: theory utilizing what we have observed.

: How do you know? (not how do you postulate) How do you know the universe
: started off sterile? Answer that, or we are done.

: I have. Repeatedly.

: How do you know ? You were NOT there to observe it. How do you know that
: there was no matter in the beginning? You are ONLY able to form
: explanations which you feel are best supported by observations made here
: and now, to this date. Do you deny that?
: Regardless, when it may have happened is of zero practical relevance, if it
: cannot be tested.

: Be a good scientist, think critically: TEST your postulation that biological
: life can arise from non-biological matter.
: Demonstrate that biological life can and does come from non-biological
: matter, with zero biological influence. Do it. Or point to someone who
: did, and has sufficiently documented the evidence and the experimentation
: process. If you cannot, then you have not addressed my point, and my case
: rests: There is currently no demonstratable, observable data that
: biological life either has a "vital spark", OR that it can
: ever arise from non-biological matter.
: The default stance is only what we know: We observe biological organisms, and
: we observe non-biological matter. There is a difference, and we do not
: (yet?) know how to cross that mysterious boundary that distinguishes
: non-biological matter from biological organisms.

: That is the long and the short of it.

No one has proposed an alternate theory of how the universe began that fits all observed facts, like the recession of other galaxies, the omni-directional microwave background temperature, the wall of plasma beyond which nothing can be observed (the big bang glow itself), etc. That;s why the Big Bang Theory is still top dog of explanations. Sure something could oust it, but it would have to be something that still explains all observations.

'Observation' is not limited to what human eyes can discern in the visible portion of the EM spectrum. I not saying that's what you're implying, but it sounded similar. Looking farther out into space is exactly like looking back in time. Looking at the sun right now is actually you seeing it as it appeared about 8 minutes ago. For the moon, about 2 seconds ago. For the nearest star to the sun, about 4 years in the past. We can't see anything in the 'present' when we look up into space.

It's probably close to impossible to create living matter from non-living chemicals in a world rife with life...too many instances to contaminate the experiment. Finding life on another world (Mars, Europa, Titan, etc.) would do it for me, but only if it was not DNA-based life. We already know rocks from Earth have could have reached Mars and rocks from Mars have definitely reached Earth through natural means, so even martian life could be contaminated by Earth. Or perhaps Earth life began on Mars and seeded Earth. Entirely possible.