It is reasonable to believe Alexander Oparin's basic theory of abiogenesis (aka "Primordial Soup")

Hello, this is my first debate on this website and so I apologize for perhaps not adhering to the customs and unwritten rules of this website. In any event, I've a great deal of respect for many of the debaters on this website. I've been especially impressed by many of the philosophical debates. I've noticed that there have been more than a few debates on biological evolution. Unfortunately, the topic of abiogenesis is usually swept under the rug. The proponent of intelligent design/creationism will bring it up, and the evolutionist will invariably declare that evolution and abiogenesis are wholly separate topics. It's not that I disagree with the evolutionist, we can accept evolution with little to know knowledge of how life began in the first place, but I think that it's a travesty that a topic as interesting and important as abiogenesis goes undiscussed. With that, from my perusing of DDO, it seems that I should set the terms of the debate in the first round and actual arguing will begin in the second round, where I and my opponent will make our arguments. Some terms and rules: -While I enjoy semantics, smoke-and-mirrors, and other parlor tricks, I would like this debate to be on the substanitive issue of abiogenesis, not the mistakes that I've inadvertantly made in wording the debate. -I would like my challenger to be someone who believes that Oparin's theory (Primordial soup) of abiogenesis is unreasonable. They can believe and advocate any other position on how life began (from Biblical Creationism to Raelism to Biocentrism) -Keep the arguments civil and rational. I can handle irrelevant jibes and whimsical personal attacks aimed at me, but the arguments themselves should remain academic. -I realize that the resolution is fairly vague. By "reasonable" I mean that there aren't any glaring errors, insurmountable objections or better scientific theories. The resolution could be negated if there is an acceptable argument that would show that Oparin's hypothesis is logically impossible, scientifically invalid, extremely unlikely or there is a better alternative. Essentially, I don't have to prove Oparin's abiogenesis happened beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, I just have to show that it's the best idea that we have about the origins of life and that there are no blatant errors. -By "basic" I mean conceptually. I realize that Oparin was unable to do much empirical investigation into his hypothesis, and that the scientific consensus points to the early atmosphere being composed differently than Oparin, Haldane and others believed. I would prefer that the debate focus on the principles of abiogenesis, as opposed to the merits of individual experiments and hypotheses. This doesn't mean that the results of individual experiments cannot be used to support a position but simply saying "The Miller-Urey experiments didn't accurately recreate the Hadean atmosphere" is not sufficient for negation. -Argue as technically or abstractly as you like, this debate can focus on the specific chemical issues of the origins of life (though if you take this route, please ensure that you are engaging Primordial soup theory as a whole, not just individual experiments and studies) or on the more philosophical aspects, so long as you engage the principle of the Primordial soup theory. If there are any other questions, or objections to these rules, please leave them in the comments section and we'll get that hammered out. The basic conceptualization of the Primordial soup theory is as follows (this is informational and is setting out the theory that I'm defending, not an argument): -In the Hadean eon, the atmosphere was virtually oxygenless. -Sometime between 4000 and 2000 mya, life formed and the atmosphere was oxygenized to more closely resemble our current atmosphere. -Before this, the chemical makeup of the atmosphere and oceans with the help of sunlight (or deep sea vents according to some) allowed for amino acids to form in the earth's oceans. -These organic compounds sometimes arranged themselves into self assembling "proto life", expanding through fusion and dividing through fission. These early "cells" (though most would be loathe to call them actual, modern cells) were acted upon by natural selection, becoming more complex. We should note that the borders of "life" are very fuzzy. The modern proponents of abiogenesis do not believe that life miraculously appeared, rather that there was a long time in which proto-life existed which gradually became more like modern life. There was never a spontaneous arrangement of inorganic molecules that formed the first cell. Again, I apologize for my clumsy attempt at instigating a debate, but if you bear with me I think we can have an extremely productive debate.