Abiogenesis

I do not accept the claims of long geologic ages and the age of the Earth being 4.5G years old, nor do I accept the claims that micro-evolution extends to macro-evolution given enough time, but since this debate is about abiogenesis, I will not argue these points. I understand that spontaneous generation is different and I understand that abiogenesis does not involve the formation of a universal common biological ancestor. Ideas of abiogenesis began with the protein world hypothesis. The famous Miller-Urrey experiment is an example of the thinking of the day. Because they produced a few amino acids, the experiment was hailed as support for the hypothesis. As scientists learned more about biochemistry and genetics, they soon realized life could not have arose from simple proteins alone. They then hypothesized a DNA world, but this soon fell through as DNA was found to be a very delicate molecule which cannot self-replicate without proteins, and proteins cannot be made without RNA. So now many adherents to naturalism hypothesize a RNA world. I don't contend that if we were to begin with belief in purely natural causes as our axiom that RNA is a good candidate for abiogenesis. What I would argue is that, axioms aside, abiogenesis is an unproven hypothesis. The RNA hypothesis is a feeble one at best and has many inherent problems. You say, "Note that the conditions of the early Earth predicted and found by conventional science are very different to what we observe today." What conventional science are you referring to? You also say, ". . .the Earth formed from the same material the sun was formed from. . ." Are we to assume the veracity of the "Big Bang" standard model? Allow me to point out a few problems with your RNA world hypothesis: 1.) I would argue that your "conventional science" does not prove early Earth atmospheric conditions. But even assuming the "Big Bang," a 4.5Gy old Earth, and the absence of O2 in the early Earth atmosphere, you would not get the formation of the first RNA based life. As you know, the presence of O2 would entail a sure degradation of any RNA strand. But when attempting to solve this problem by removing O2, a new problem arises. If there is no O2, then there is no O3, and if there is no O3, then by consequence, there is no ozone layer to guard the RNA from solar radiation, and despite the common claim that entropy does not pertain to abiogenesis, without a mechanism to utilize the energy coming from the sun, the RNA molecule would be broken down and you would consequently not get the first RNA based life. 2.) Even if you were to produce a strand of RNA, there is no evidence of a self-replicating RNA strand as you seem to acknowledge when you say, "What the RNA worl hypothesis needs is just one of these randomly produced structures to show some ability to assist the replication of RNA. . ." This is detrimental to the tenability of the hypothesis. Besides this, self-replicating RNA would be very bad, as the worst viruses are RNA viruses. Such a pathogen would be unstoppable as it would not be recognized by any protein and would be able to be passed on to any organism, be it plant or animal. This RNA replicator would also be very persistent, and yet we find no evidence of it today. You may be interested in reading about more detailed problems, which I am not prepared to defend but are given for your prospective interest: (http://www.arn.org...) and (http://creation.com...).