Information science demonstrates that biological information requires an intelligent mind (i.e. God)

You say, "While there is indeed little definitive evidence as to formation of life, there is equally as little evidence of life being created by any central deity." This is not true. There is no definitive evidence that abiogenesis is possible. As for evidence of life being created by a deity, there is substantial evidence based on the irreducibly complex structure of the cell and the laws of both biogenesis (life only comes from life) and information science (which I'm arguing for in this debate.) You say, "Disproving one theory doesn"t necessary make another one any more valid." That's true but in the case of biogenesis, if natural matter cannot produce information, the concept of a supernatural origin is viable. It is not true that science explains the universe by only naturalistic processes; this is a bias and a philosophical position of science. Science aims to experimentally find the answers not only to the form and function of the natural world but also to its origins. When evidence, such as the evidence of information science, leads us to the supernatural, we must concede to it. You say, "With that said however, your claim that abiogenesis has no scientific merit is false. . ." I never said it has no scientific merit, rather I said it is an unproven hypothesis. You say, "This information cannot be used to disprove a scientific formation of life however since it ignores the idea that a molecule may go against entropy with application of energy." I am not attempting to disprove a scientific formation of life. I am proposing a scientific formation of life: life came about as a creative act of the mind of God. Your statement that entropy can be thwarted by adding energy is flawed. Simply adding energy to something, without a mechanism to utilize the energy (i.e. chloroplast), will only speed up the process of entropy. Solar radiation breaks down amino acids, lipids, and all other compounds which are commonly proposed as the first to form DNA/RNA. You say, "I would like to direct your attention to the Miller-Urey experiment, which was able to create many of the amino acids that form life by applying electric energy (which could have been lightning as used in experiment or another form of energy) to an environment that was thought to be similar to one found on earth at the time life evolved." I'm surprised you are using this experiment as an example. This experiment actually works against the idea that life can abiotically form (http://creation.com...). Regardless, the Miller-Urey experiment is meaningless in this debate as it is not evidence for abiogenesis. Forming amino acids in a lab under special conditions (like making a catch for the amino acids so they don't have any cross-reaction with the other compounds formed) does not give any credence to the hypothesis of abiogenesis for the following reasons: one, forming amino acids and expecting them to form RNA is like throwing a bunch of Legos in a box and expecting them to form a house. There are huge problems in getting polynucleotides to form; the polymerization problem (http://www.arn.org...). Second, most all enzymes are designed to work only with right-handed sugars and left-handed amino acids, yet in lab experiments, a racemate mixture is produced. Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral, this is known as the chirality problem (http://creation.com...). Third, cross-reactions would be inevitable in realistic, natural settings. These reactions would hinder the production of more complex amino acids (http://creation.com...). You say, "One could argue the composition of earth"s atmosphere when life was first created, but one may not dispute the fact that there are planets (including ones in our solar system) that have similar compositions of molecules, suggesting that even if composition on earth was unlikely to support formation of amino acids, the likelihood of these molecules coming from other planets is also likely." Yes, one could argue very strongly that, assuming the veracity of the geologic column, the early Earth's atmosphere was not a reducing one (http://creation.com...) nor was it anaerobic ( http://geology.gsapubs.org...). Even if you had the right atmospheric conditions, whether on our planet or on another, abiogenesis would still be an improbability for the reasons already listed above. You say, ". . .as humans generate non material entities on a daily basis, it is the ideas and thoughts that we generate. Ideas and thoughts satisfy the definition of universal information as it is created by an "intelligent sender" defined as someone who is conscious, has a will of its own, is creative, thinks autonomously, and acts purposefully. Therefore we as humans, a material entity generate universal information, a non-material entity." The problem with this deduction of yours is that you erroneously equate ideas and thoughts with our material composition. Cognition is not a derivative or byproduct of chemistry in our brain. If you believe so, then why even have this debate as we simply say and believe what the chemistry in our brain leads us to. Also if you argue that our thoughts and ideas are just a result of neurologic chemistry, then those thoughts and ideas are also a material entity since they are just the result of activating your cerebral cortex and utilizing stored memories from your frontal and medial lobes. This can easily lead into an entirely different debate so I wont argue this point. Your deduction also doesn't really help your case as I am arguing for an intelligent mind as the source of genetic information and you posit that the ideas and thoughts we generate is information coming from an intelligent mind. You say, "The arguments presented in the article for this one are false, as I have shown beforehand, there have been physical experiments to show how life might have evolved, not to mention several experiments to show evolution of organisms in action." You have not shown how they are false. All you have provided is one outdated experiment where under special lab conditions a few amino acids were formed (not even the 20 required for life). It has been repeatedly shown through experimentation that it is highly improbable that these amino acids would have been able to form the first polynucleotides, let alone the first RNA/DNA based life. What experiments show evolution in action? I hope you are not referring to these commonly cited examples of evolution in action via mutations: 1.) Sickle cell anemia: confers a resistance to the malaria parasite by producing deformed hemoglobin molecules. (http://creation.com...) 2.) Aerobic citrate digestion by bacteria: this involves the loss of control of the normal anaerobic citrate digestion. (http://creation.com...) 3.) Nylon digestion by bacteria: this involves a loss of substrate specificity in one enzyme contained on an extra chromosomal plasmid (http://creation.com...) 4.) Antibiotic resistance of bacteria: in the case where resistance is due to mutation, this involves a rearranging or deleting of information resulting in a change in which the antibiotic is not able to be transported into the bacteria or in which the antibiotic is not able to bind and consequently kill the bacteria. (http://creation.com...) Your last statement on SLI-4 has been addressed.