Primordial soup theory of abiogenesis is more likely to be true than (Insert competing theory here).

My opponent claims abiogenesis makes these assumptions. "1) All Natural Laws have always existed as they are today. " 1 this isn't true. There's no reason why certain natural laws changed before the end of the late heavy bombardment period, or after life had already begun. 2 Scientists suppose that relevant physical laws were the same in the past as they are now because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise. We believe the position that both adequately describes the available evidence and requires fewer unnecessary postulations than an opposing viewpoint. It would be unnecessary for us to believe that any relevant physical laws changed between ~3850 mya and ~2000 mya. Suppose I come upon a boiling pot of water with a lit stove beneath it. I could believe that the transfer of heat from the stove caused the water to boil, though this would force me to assume that no relevant physical laws had changed. I could also believe that the laws of physics had changed for one reason or another and this allowed the water to boil at room temperature. Though I cannot be certain that the naturalistic explanation for the boiling water is correct, it is clearly the better of the options at hand. 3 we cannot test hypotheses that demand a different set of physics. And if we could, they would be even more speculative "2) Nothing outside of the Natural Realm has inserted itself into the process. " False. Abiogenesis only provides a reasonable path for which it would not be necessary for anything supernatural to insert itself. This "assumption" is really more of a conclusion - that it wasn't necessary for anything supernatural to be involved in the exact process of inorganic matter becoming life, and so it would be silly of us to assume that some supernatural decided to involve itself in a process that would be possible without it. We can use the pot of water dealy, while it is possible that something supernatural had aided the water's boiling, given that there is a perfectly reasonable natural explanation we should defer to that. "< ID sees what is and starts from the beginning… utilizing as few assumptions as possible" I am unaware of any research being done that gives any positive results for ID. I'm unable to argue the scientific merits of this work if I don't know what it is. Furthermore, I find it unlikely that ID utilizes fewer, or less sensationalist assumptions than Primordial Soup does. My opponent seems to rely on the notion that life began suddenly. Evolutionary biology came to the conclusion that life develops gradually because it fits the available data. My opponent makes several arguments suggesting that the laws of physics can and do change. First, let's suppose that all of these are genuine reasons that suggest that the laws of physics do indeed change. Saying that the laws of physics can change does not in any way suggest that they did in order for life to suddenly burst into existence. If I happen upon some phenomenon, and there is a perfectly reasonable, natural explanation, I should defer to that being true, unless there is some reason why the natural explanation is flawed. But there's no evidence suggesting that physics changes. "It also puts forward the fact that once everything was generated into existence, things popping into existence out of absolute "nothing" ceased popping into existence. " False. Things were never generated ex nihlo. According to the "mainstream" big bang theory (which my opponent accepts) at t=0, there was a bundle of energy. This bundle didn't simply pop into existence, it makes no sense to say that there was nothing before t=0, as there wasn't time (I'm already making the mistake of saying "was" when referring to something timeless). My opponent has yet to offer any reason why there was nothing, and that the bundle of energy popped in. There is a huge body of scientific literature on the fact that time began with the big bang. . http://www.hawking.org.uk... "a slow period of change was at one time completely and absolutely unnecessary for generation. " So what? Life forming from inorganic matter isn't generation. A slow period being unnecessary for the formation of the universe has absolutely no bearing on what else happens spontaneously (should I believe that nations, books, or trees form spontaneously, simply because the universe did? ). "This is also postulated (not Big Bang Alone) due to the alpha constant in other galaxies is shown to be very different…" 1 there is no published literature, it is currently under peer review. There is plenty of paradigm shattering research done that turns out to be wrong. It's unfair for my opponent to claim research that is unpublished, since the criticism is also unpublished and I don't have access to it. 2 one of the researchers involved specifically states that he doesn't think that the results are genuine. 3 At best, this just proves that the "alpha constant" isn't a constant at all. It suggests that there are deeper physical laws that affect the alpha constant, not that the laws changed. The article talks of an axis of evil in which the alpha constant varies, this suggests that some other factor affects the alpha constant in a predictable way, not that the laws of physics change. There is a fourth dimension (and more) it's not just possible, it's necessary to reconcile relativity with quantum physics. However, there's no evidence that has suggested that some fourth dimensional intervention caused life to burst into existence. Again, simply saying that it could happen doesn't mean that we should prefer a supernatural (or 4th dimensional) force when there is a perfectly acceptable natural reason (I shouldn't think that a pot of water boiled as a result of supernatural forces if there is a reasonable heat source nearby). There is no evidence of any 4th dimensional beings, other than differing and inconsistent testimonies. Finally my opponent says that Christianity claims a sudden beginning of life 1 "Christianity" as a whole is inconsistent about how life began. A literal interpretation of Genesis claims that life began suddenly. 2 Ancient people claimed a lot of things that were wrong. 3 Empirical results point to a gradual development of life. Kerogen appeared in the atmosphere long before the oxygenization of the atmosphere. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The only point my opponent puts against my case is that scientists aren't sure about abiogenesis. This is half true. Researches like Muller are "spitballing". However, scientist are confident that monomers formed in the earth's oceans, proto life beginning in the late Hadean, and it undergoing transformations to become more like modern life. Essentially, my opponent would have you believe that because primordial soup isn't undeniable truth, we should believe in shifting laws of physics and interdimensional beings involving themselves. I have shown that the laws of physics don't change, and even if they did, we should always defer to the adequate explanation that requires fewer unnecessary postulations. While I do need to suppose that relevant physical laws were not changed during the formation of life, and that the supernatural did not involve itself in the actual process of life's beginning, my opponent must assume the opposite, despite this having no predictive ability, and is a far more unnecessary postulation. Although these sorts of analogies are tired, if there's a phenomenon with natural explanations, and no serious flaws, I should defer to that explanation, although possible that physics changed or something supernatural was involved. Until my opponent presents positive evidence for supernatural intervention, or a fatal flaw with primordial soup, we defer to the naturalistic explanation. Simply saying that the universe began suddenly has no bearing on how life began.