Abiogenesis Is Impossible

First off, I'd like to point out that while Con has skillfully outlined for us the hypothesis of abiogenesis, he has neither offered evidence to support the hypothesis nor cited sources that offer evidence to support it. The youtube video he offers, while having a wonderful classical instrumental played in the background, also fails to offer evidence to back up its claims or cite sources. Not only that, but there are fundamental problems with Con's introduction of abiogenesis:1. "The early pre-biotic earth was filled with organic molecules"What proof does Con have that the pre-biotic earth was filled? Experiments to produce organic molecules often only given small yields of organic molecules. The Miller-Urey experiment only gave a yeild of 2%. That coupled with the destructive nature of oxygen [see sources in round 1], how could the pre-biotic earth have been filled with organic molecules? Also, what specific organic molecules? Amino acids are not the only building blocks for life. RNA and DNA strands alone require nucleotides, phospates, sugars. There are other problems, but I only have so much space.2. "The pre-biotic environment contained hundreds of different types of nucleotides, all it took was one to polymerize, they can replicate themselves. ""Hundreds of different types of nucleotides". I find this strange, seeing as how there are only five (plus, two recently discovered cell-modified versions of cytosine) types of nucleotides known to exist: Cytosine, uracil, adenine, guanine, and thymine. What proof does Con have that these nucleotides even existed. Are there a few hundred other types of nucleotides that Con has discovered that we don't know about? Also, the phrase "all it took was one to polymerize" is deceptive. First of all, a single nucleotide can not polymerize. Polymerization is the process in which one molecule bonds with another molecule. It would take multiple nucleotides for polymerization. Also, polymerization of nucleotides is tricky because a nucleotide base pair actually consists of not only two nucleotides but a phosphate and a sugar (in RNA, it's ribose. In DNA, it's deoxyribose), in addition, because molecules can bond with a plethora of different chemicals in a plethora of different ways, Con needs to show a way in which these chemicals could have bonded correctly, either without the use of ATP and the enzymes modern cells use to catalyze and control the polymerization process, or he must show that ATP and enzymes could have existed. Note: Adenine and guanine have been produced in abiogenesis experiments (there are problems with these experiments, but I'm trying to only give relevant rebuttals) and have been discovered in meteorites. Uracil can be produced from pyrimidines, but cytosine has not been produced in spark experiments. There is an experiment that involves combining two cytosine derivates (created in small ammounts from spark experiments). However, I'll only give the problems to this experiment if Con cites it as evidence that cytosine could have existed.3. "So far we have lipid vesicles that can grow and divide, and nucleotide polymers that can self-replicate all on their own"Wait a second, we have nucleotide polymers? When did this happen? It seems that our opponent has sadly forgotten to cite evidence, once again. Note: Even if nucleotide polymers were to have existed, when RNA self-replicates, it actually replicates onto itself, and becomes closed like a zipper. In modern day cells, the enzyme polymerase is produced to unzip this "zipper". a) . http://en.wikipedia.org...b) . http://en.wikipedia.org...4. "The pre-biotic environment contained many simple fatty acids, under a range of PH they spontaneously form stable vesicles. "I'm actually not going to focus on the problems with this statement. However, this site gives a detailed list of issues with the genesis of a cell membrane, if the audience is interested in looking into it:a) . http://www.godandscience.org...Refutations Of Con's Refutations1. "This is absolutely off (by 2 billion years)"Con assumes that oxygen can only be produced by organisms (this is false, oxygen can exist without organisms creating it. Not only that, but oxygen has been found in space, where there aren't any organisms [1]), and ignores the evidence in the oxidized iron from Akilia Island in West Greenland as well as the evidence from the other three sources I cited.2. "Volcanic eruptions involve the release of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases as well as water vapor"Con cited a tumblr post with an unknown author that itself does not cite any sources. I can find no other sources that back up his claim. Unless Con can find another source to back up his claim, please consider his point null and void.3. "The very fact that all people who do not advocate Abiogenesis throw out how the probability of it is so low, proves that even they believe it is possible. If they didn't, they would say the chance of it happening is 0. "Obviously I consider the probability of abiogenesis taking place to be 0. Otherwise I wouldn't be debating you right now.4. "The fact we are here proves not only is it possible, but it most likely happened (unless you believe in the supernatural and magic)"Con refutes his own claim. There are many who believe in the supernatural. It has also not been proven that the supernatural doesn't exist.5. Here Con gives a long list of hypotheses. The question is: Which of these does Con advocate? Where is the evidence to back up these hypotheses? The existence of a hypothesis about how something could have happened does not prove that it did or can happen. [1] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...________________________________________I'd like to make a note of the sources Con has used in his argument. Source 1: A youtube video that "summarizes" a particular scientists work yet fails to cite any sources, and skips over the fundamental problems with abiogenesis as listed in above arguments. Source 2: An alleged quote from a particular geochemist. Source 3: A tumblr post with an unknown author and un-cited content. Source 4: A faulty link to some unknown blogspot post. Source 5: A website that describes the Miller-Urey experiment. Can you spot the evidence for abiogenesis? Neither can I.