I have no problem calling it abiotioc or non-biological if the word “pre-biotic” gives you trouble. I don’t have to assume that the distribution of amino acids one obtains from natural chemical reactions will inevitably lead to life wherever it occurs. So you can just substitute in abiotic in place of prebiotic.
The non-biological (a-biotic) distribution produced by blind physics and chemistry can be shown both through experiment (observed in meteorites) and predicted on thermodynamic grounds. Given the laws of physics as we understand them and a particular geological setting, these are the products we would expect regardless of whether they go on to lead to life or not. That’s it.
Weird thing to say. Evolution and abiogenesis are completely irrelevant when it comes to my worldview. I certainly don’t rely on them to make my case against theistic belief.
Right now I define it as a distraction. I just introduced the idea that you people do not have the evidence that you claim to have.
Further, I backed it up by saying you are using “prebiotic” in an illegitimate matter.
Then after @rumaket finally admits “these are the products we would expect regardless of whether they go on to lead to life or not”, I respond and say,
Then you have no evidence,
to which you say in effect, “Shut up. Don’t answer that”
Now that is where we stand at the moment. Everything else is a distraction.
