Life Comes From Life, Abiogenesis is not Verifiable. So in conclusion an eternal being must exist.

I Will start by thanking my opponent for taking this debate, I will start by addressing the link with Richard Dawkins an Lawrence Krauss, that Con offers. The Video claims, that in physics, that Nothing is a physical quality, Lets make this clear, They claim, Nothing, is actually Something. It actually has a physical quality, They state in this video that NOTHING, is actually Virtual particles and Chemicals. They then claim that this 'Nothing' Or Virtual particle's, are the chemical composition for life. They state Darwin's theory of the chemicals bubbling around in a warm little pond, which then created the first self replicating molecule. Even if this was the case, I doubt it, because there is no proof that life is a chemical composition, If life can simply emerge or be created materially or chemically, then the scientist's should demonstrate this by mixing the right chemical compositions together, and create Life. They are not able to do this, But my challenge still stands. But even if it were possible, Which I doubt. We must bring into question the immense information needed for the first self replicating molecule to have emerged. I will refer to a once prominent atheist and Champion Philosopher, now turned Deist, Anthony Flew. He states. and "I now realise that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction. " He blamed his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter. "[20] His 2007 book revisited the question, however, and questioned contemporary models: "the latest work I have seen shows that the present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of abiogenesis to get the job done. "] He added: "The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem. "[21] . http://en.wikipedia.org... So even by natural terms, the immense amount of information required for the first living cell to emerge, With Coded Chemistry, is no longer in the realms of biology, but something quite different altogether. A creator perhaps. Or by chance. We know that even with all the intelligence of science, they are not able to combine any type of chemicals that can create a living organism. even though they have the exact chemical composition of what a living thing is compiled of. This would suggest that life is simply not only material, but there is an un-identified aspect to life. I believe it is a spiritual particle which is elusive to all types of scientific testing, Let me make this clear, Spirit is NOT a material substance, that's why science is unable to detect it. But by way of study and reasoning we can determine that, it seems more likely than not, that all living entities are Spiritual beings inhabiting a material body. I would like to note, that my position in this matter is to give analysis of how there is good reason to believe we are spiritual beings. based on philosophy and science, which I will offer more reason for in my next round I would also like to note, that my opponents position is to give reason, that life is able to arise from non-living material. That said, I offer some more by way of life not being material and in the next round try to convey as to why I think it is Spiritual. Srila Prabhupada. [casting Dr. Singh in the role of a materialistic scientist]. All right, scientist, why is life not coming from matter now? You rascal. Why isn't life coming from matter now? Actually such scientists are rascals. They childishly say that life came from matter, although they are not at all able to prove it. Our Krsna consciousness movement should expose all these rascals. They are only bluffing. Why don't they create life immediately? In the past, they say, life arose from matter; and they say that this will happen again in the future. They even say that they will create life from matter. What kind of theory is this? They have already commented that life began from matter. This refers to the past--began. Then why do they now speak of the future? Is it not contradictory? They are expecting the past to occur in the future. This is childish nonsense. Karandhara. They say that life arose from matter in the past and that they will create life this way in the future. Srila Prabhupada. What is this nonsense? If they cannot prove that life arises from matter in the present, how do they know life arose this way in the past? Dr. Singh. They are assuming Srila Prabhupada. Everyone can assume, but this is not science. Everyone can assume something. You can assume something, I can assume something. But there must be proof. We can prove that life arises from life. For example, a father begets a child. The father is living, and the child is living. But where is their proof that a father can be a dead stone? Where is their proof? We can easily prove that life begins from life. And the original life is God. That also can be proved. But what evidence exists that a child is born of stone? They cannot actually prove that life comes from matter. They are leaving that aside for the future. [Laughter. ] Karandhara. The scientists say that they can now formulate acids, amino acids, that are almost like one-celled living organisms. They say that because these acids so closely resemble living beings, there must be just one missing link needed before they can create life. Srila Prabhupada. Nonsense I'll challenge them to their face! A. C Bhaktivendata Swami Prabhupada. . http://www.prabhupada-books.de...