This challenge is based on the assumption that there are no successful experiments in abiogenesis–there are no experiments that demonstrate how to provide new, useful product in a form usable in a subsequent step closer to the emergence of a living cell. I.e., There is nothing valid to be cited in Challenge 1.

Virtually every combination of energy sources, starting chemicals and environmental conditions has been tested in origin of life experiments. Some of these produce chemicals that could be useful in the appearance of life. If NONE of these has demonstrated an approach which can provide new chemicals usable directly as provided in a subsequent step towards abiogenesis, then two questions arise: 1) Shouldn’t this be adequate to make it dishonest to teach that actually observed science leads to the conclusion that a natural origin of life is virtually confirmed; it is a waste of time to consider contrary evidence? 2) Why should any scientist not be considered fake if he claims observed science confirms the adequacy of natural processes to create life when the truth not only appears to teach the opposite of this, but has done so consistently for the past sixty years? Just because a person may be a legitimate expert in one field of science does not give him the authority to misrepresent evidence in another.