Abiogenesis is the more probable explanation for the origin of life

"My opponent is like anyone else who has the ability to punch a few buttons on a computer and finding information that he BELIEVES has something to do with the origin of life." There is evidence to support this hypothesis. I looked up sources for evidence, like the rules stated in round one, source all claims. "There are many theories of the origin of life and the one he's describing is just another educated guess by some very deceived scientists. The reason they're deceived is because they believe in what they observe has something to do with reality." You have no evidence to say they are deceived. The links I provided are to actual experiments and observations. REAL science. "Any theory gets started by an invisible question within the mind of someone who is observing something he doesn't understand. These scientists observing these amino acids keep getting new invisible questions in their minds to try answer without them wondering how they got the questions within their mind in the first place." First, their field of study is not neurology. Second, we already know where these questions originate, the Brain. http://www.ninds.nih.gov... "They don't realize these questions come from invisible vibrations. The answer to everything is within these invisible vibrations but men continue to believe the answers are something they can observe instead. This is why all scientists are deceived when they get closer to the origin of life and our true created existence. They believe that life is what they see instead of knowing that all life was created as invisible waves before any visible objects can be seen." You still have not provided any evidence of these invisible waves. You also have not shown that our understanding of science is wrong. "I Googled these following paragraphs from this website; http://www.universetoday.com...; These scientists think that life came from something that is observed rather than coming from invisible waves." All evidence points to the scientific explanation. You need to provide evidence otherwise. Burden of proof of this is on you at this point, you have not filled it. "They need observed chemicals in water, air and rocks to form their theories but they still use the word "IF", which is a word that has nothing to do with the Truth. When anyone uses the word "IF", they don't have the confidence to say that their theory is the Truth and nothing but the Truth. In fact, it wouldn't hold up in court because of the many "IF's" involved." I read your article and these are the only times they used the word if: "So, if life arose on Earth, it did so from the chemicals in the water, air, and rocks of the early Earth "" Meaning that life could have arisen from somewhere else, which is possible. "if you can make some sort of primitive cell in a test tube, it isn"t a form of life if it can"t reproduce itself!" Which is telling you one of the requirements of life. "They don't have enough proof to say for sure that the origin of life came from what they observed." They cannot YET say for sure, but they can say it is very likely. This is not a debate about proof, it is a debate about likelihood. "Another thing they don't understand is where the water, air and rocks came from that they need as evidence to support their theories of abiogenesis." It started at the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the creation of energy and the 4 fundamental forces. All of these were unified for less than a second, this period of time the Planck epoch. After the Planck epoch everything started to expand at a rate faster than the speed of light, going from a subatomic size to the size of a golf-ball almost instantaneously, this is called the Inflationary period. There is a concept in Quantum Mechanics known as Quantum Fluctuations. Quantum Fluctuations are moments where energy appears from nothing with no cause, but usually eliminates itself almost immediately, becoming nothing again. This shows that something can actually come from nothing. The Big Bang is the expansion of this Singularity. Star formation is one of the most basic phenomena in the Universe. Inside stars, primordial material from the Big Bang is processed into heavier elements that we observe today. In the extended atmospheres of certain types of stars, these elements combine into more complex systems like molecules and dust grains, the building blocks for new planets, stars and galaxies and, ultimately, for life. Violent star-forming processes let otherwise dull galaxies shine in the darkness of deep space and make them visible to us over large distances. When the life of a star finally comes to an end and the star explodes it leaves behind all the atoms needed to make the next generation of solar systems and sometimes life. About 4.6bn years ago our own solar system formed. Our solar system formed when a star somewhere else in the galaxy exploded, leaving the necessary atoms for our solar system. Because of the energetic explosion the dust mixtures became extremely hot and things started to cook. Bits of the dust started to clump together making bigger and bigger lumps. Eventually the clumps formed to such a size that the mixture began to pull together under its own gravity, becoming so hot and dense that it started to generate its own energy, igniting nuclear fires. This was the birth of our Sun. The rest of the dust started to swirl around the Sun, fanning out into a disk. Gradually the Sun grew in size and the dusty disk cooled. Over millions of years the dust clustered into grains, then lumps, next boulders, and eventually planetesimals. Some of these became the planets. Earth's atmosphere and oceans arrived about 4bn years ago. It could be the product of multiple volcanic burps, they may have come from comets colliding with Earth and releasing water and gases at the surface. It could also be a result of both. "Where did the air come from? Where did the water come from? Where did the rocks come from? If they can't give you the answer to where these elements came from, then how can they prove to us that life was formed from these elements." I just told you where they come from. "How can they prove that rocks got up and danced with each other and started languages to talk to each other?" No scientist says this. The first life was a single-celled organism. I already explained the RNA World Hypothesis. "We saints who speak for our Creator are taught by our Creator about who we are and how He created us. This knowledge is taught to us by writing thousands of pages of words that He puts in our invisible mind for us to write down on paper and all the words He puts in our mind to speak with." Evidence? "These invisible words He puts in my mind have to be converted from wavelengths of energy into English words that I can understand so this is why God had me write and speak the English words He puts in my mind. If they were in a different language, I wouldn't be taught anything because I wouldn't understand what He wants me to know." "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"Carl Sagan "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"Christopher Hitchens "It doesn't take amino acids to put invisible words in my mind to write or speak for our Creator." Technically, if you actually are receiving invisible words, it does. Without amino acids you would not have a brain, without a brain you would have no mind. "All it takes is invisible waves converted into languages we understand. Mathematics were taught to men by our Creator by first having some people look up into the stars and having them draw imaginary lines from one star to the next to get shapes for the characters used as numbers and written languages. How else do you think man got these characters to use for languages? Do you think they all came from abiogenesis that these scientists believe is the origin of life?" Abiogenesis only is the answer of the origin of life, the single-celled organism. The characters for language don"t require a God. The original cave paintings can be seen as a type of written language and all they did was draw what they saw. It did not require any God. Eventually it would become easier to use symbols to represent different things, later a combination of symbols would become more efficient. What we see as a written language is nothing but a bunch of random symbols that we have assigned a meaning to. "To believe in abiogenesis as the answer to the origin of life is the same as Christians believing that a man named Jesus is their god. There's absolutely NO PROOF that abiogenesis or Jesus are the Truth." I already provided evidence that abiogenesis is probable. This is a straw man. "By the way, the word "probable" has nothing to do with the Truth." The topic of the debate is what is more probable, if something is true than it will be more probable if evidence points to it. Probability also has a lot to do with the PURSUIT of truth. To find the truth you must test things that are probable. Eventually you can find out if it is true or not. "Life was either created by our Creator who calls Himself the Truth and had His prophets and saints testify to His invisible creation or it was through the process of abiogenesis where rocks got up and danced with each other." Strawman arguments are logical fallacies. "I'll let you decide if we came from dead water, air and rocks or if we exist within the mind of our Creator as His dreams and life is nothing but a dream to each one of His created invisible beings." This is about what is more probable. It also looks like you did not read what I said because of how much you are misrepresenting abiogenesis. You have still been unable to provide any evidence or sources of your information. ______________ My opponent has not filled his burden of proof. He has not even made a successful rebuttal. He has not even sourced a single claim of his.