Quote
My, don't you just shun that burden of proof! The abiogenesis crowd is making the crazy claim that life arose from a random natural process. They up & made that claim after it was well known that life does not arise from non-life. Now they'd made it in the past & got slam-dunked, but they didn't learn their lesson. This time, they need to produce.

Now chemistry ain't my bag. It's fascinating, but too much memorization. And I'm confident they already know most of the ways atoms bond, and the limitations. Bonds are bonds, after all. Things that are bound can't up & do as they please. I'd say those bonds are probably the very mechanism you're asking me to provide, but I'd have to investigate some more before I could be firm about it.

And besides, if nature could manufacture anything better in the way of complexity, why are you guys always bringing up snow?

This is largely an argument from incredulity. Saying that you don't believe something is possible does not mean that it isn't. History is replete with examples of the seemingly-impossible becoming mainstream knowledge. Ain't quantum mechanics just zany stuff?

If chemistry ain't your bag, then why are you essentially accusing the majority of chemists of being liars, or not knowing what they are talking about? What qualifies you to do this?

Mix some organic chemicals with the snow, subject the lot to the conditions that existed on the early earth, leave it for millions of years, and who knows what might happen?

As far as burden of proof goes, then it's entirely possible to test how a theory might not be true. Are you able to do this regarding abiogenesis, or otherwise come up with some proof that it is impossible? If not, then the matter reamins unresolved and in need of further study.