Abiogenesis is the more probable explanation for the origin of life

"From what I gathered, there are people on this planet who don't want to believe that a Master Designer is responsible for putting together a universe that most human beings can see." Actually, people want to know the truth. There is no evidence for a "Master designer". "Since I know for sure that life didn't come from rocks deciding to start running around and calling themselves names, my arguments won't include plagiarism that my opponent will have to use in order to make you believe him. What I mean by this is that I won't have to look up anything in Google to pretend I know something like my opponent will have to. Anyone can search Google and copy someone's written information or watch videos by liars who think they know the answers to life." Ad hominem right off the bat? Well, I will be posting experimental data. "I was created as God's voice so whatever I write or speak comes directly from our Creator who created everything" Do you have proof of this? "Since invisible waves don't need space, matter or time to exist, then everything we see has to be illusions." What evidence do you have of these invisible waves that do not require space, matter, or time? "But since I cannot prove that I'm God's created voice, and that everything we see in the universe are only illusions without space, time or matter, then it's impossible for you to know for sure how we were created and how life began." Looks like you answered most questions that arise from your post, making most of it irrelevant for the debate. "If you believe we came from inanimate rocks that got up and started dancing with each other, then agree with my opponent. if you believe that we came from invisible wavelengths of energy that are formed into physical appearing bodies that give us the sense of being something real, then you may agree with some of the things I've been sharing with you in this debate." In a debate the voters vote based on the debate, not based on their own views on the subject. "Since neither one of us can give you proof on how life began, debates like this will NOT reveal the Truth, which is the name our Creator gave to Himself and His thoughts that were spoken into invisible waves ( God's consciousness )." This is not about proving one side or the other, it is about showing which side has the most probable answer to the origin of life. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I will be focusing more on the RNA world hypothesis of abiogenesis. The RNA world is the idea that RNA came before DNA, so RNA based "life" (not actual life, but similar) could possibly exist before actual life itself, eventually leading into actual life. In 2009 chemist John Sutherland had an experiment to try and show that RNA can form naturally from remaking the conditions on an early Earth. In this experiment he was able to mimic the early Earth"s environments, which actually resulted in the formation of ribonecleotides, a building block of RNA. This is a large step in showing the RNA World Hypothesis to be correct. A RNA polymer is a string of ribonucleotides, so the formation of them in nature shows RNA forming in nature is possible. http://www.wired.com... The next important step in the RNA world hypothesis is RNA that can replicate. Tracey Lincoln and Professor Gerald Joyce worked on RNA, trying to improve in the perpetual self-replication. They succeeded in improving an RNA enzyme so that it fulfilled the goal of perpetual replication. They did not stop at that, they also mixed 12 different cross-replicating RNA enzymes together to see what would happen. There was survival of the fittest and mutations. RNA enzymes that act similar to life without being life. http://www.sciencedaily.com... So, we have seen the potential of RNA to form in nature. We have seen that certain strand of RNA can replicate and "evolve". This gives the RNA world hypothesis a lot of credit. But, what else do we have? Well, RNA and DNA have 2 main differences. DNA is double stranded and RNA has a hydroxyl group. The amazing thing is that we only have one of these things left to attempt in science. Double stranded RNA actually does exist, and it can actually work similarly to DNA in certain situations. ds-RNA can suppress certain gene expressions in plants and other organisms. It has also produced gene-specific phenotypes in Trypanosoma brucei. http://genesdev.cshlp.org... Now, imagine a strand of RNA that was both double stranded and could replicate. The only major difference between that strand of RNA and DNA is the existence of a hydroxyl group on the RNA. Even if this has not yet been shown it does not mean that it is not possible, it actually is most likely probable under the right conditions. So, we have RNA and a possible DNA, but is that life? Not yet. We are missing one thing still: proteins. Well, protein synthesis might actually be possible with just RNA and a few amino acids, the building block of protein. It would start with RNA that binds to amino acids, allowing the RNA to serve as a template to non-random polymerization of a couple different amino acids. It is also possible that certain ribozymes, like ones that have been created in labs, could have existed and acted worked with amino acids to potentially lead to protein synthesis. Even if the original protein synthesis would be crude it would improve drastically by the catalysis of peptide bond formation, which has no problem in the evolutionary process. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... It is also believed that ten of the amino acids believed to have existed on early Earth were able to form foldable proteins in high-salt environments. http://www.sciencedaily.com... Now, where did the amino acids come from? Many people like to point out that Urey-Miller experiment does not work because it was not the proper atmosphere. They do not know about the second experiment that was done. In this one a mix of volcanic gasses, like hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide, were exposed to an electrical charge. This mix actually coincides with early Earth"s atmosphere, and the experiment shows that volcanic activity and lightning could have played a role in the formation of life. Not only does this experiment help, but amino acids are not unique to Earth. Amino acids have actually been found on meteorites. The surprising thing is that some of the amino acids found on the meteorites actually match with the amino acids formed in the experiment listed above. http://www.livescience.com... What we can see is that it might actually be very possible for an RNA world to become the DNA, RNA, Protein world we have today. With DNA, RNA, and proteins present it is not that unlikely that single-celled organisms could form. This shows that abiogenesis being the origin of life is actually very probable. There are still some experiments that need to be completed, but the experiments that have been done show that it is one of the likeliest explanation about the origin of life.