Abiogenesis

I previously said, "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." But since you bring up these things as part of your argument, I must address them. You say, "First of all, is the clear trend in the fossil record of organisms going from simple to complex in our earliest to latest layers respectively." Fossils are only evidence for evolution within the framework of the geologic column and evolution models. Within the Flood/Creation model, these fossils are evidence for a global hydrologic catastrophe within a short period of time. In fact, the fossil record better supports the Flood model rather than the geologic column and evolution models (http://creation.com...). You say, "Moreover is the organism predicted by the universal common ancestor hypothesis from evolution .Which depicts a single celled organism with an encapsulated genome and metabolic pathway, from comparison of the genes that all life shares." Homologous genes is as much evidence for a common Designer as it is a common ancestor; it depends on the model you choose. Therefore homologous genes are a poor evidence for both models. You say, "Our oldest measurements of the Earth"s age from radiometric dating of our oldest zircon crystals (via Uranium-Lead dating) yields ages of ~4.3 billion years. . ." First of all, there are many dating methods which can be used to date the Earth. They are all tentative, but many are reasonably good for setting upper limits. You give one example, radiometric dating of zircons using U-Pb dating. I would question that date, but more importantly I would reject the assumptions (known starting ratio of isotopes, constant rate of decay, and known contamination). The problem with measuring isotope ratios (parent/daughter) is that, while these are precise measurements, the ages which are inferred based upon these measurements are not always reliable. Using different dating methods on a single sample may yield drastically different results. In fact, the example of U-Pb dating you give is an example of false "isochrons" (http://icr.org...). Also, Precambrian zircon crystals can actually be an evidence of an Earth ~6,000 years old based on helium diffusion data. Helium is a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements within zircon crystals. The measured rate of diffusion and amount of retention tells us that these crystals cannot be as old as they are purported to be. Since the Precambrian granite from which these zircons are found are the foundational rocks of Earth's crust, the Earth is therefore ~6,000 years old based on the findings (http://www.icr.org...) You say, "which is pretty much in line with the ages found from our oldest asteroids (4500 Mya)." I think you meant 4.5 billion years old right? This again assumes the veracity of the standard model which I will address below. You say, "Our best scientific explanation for this is the formation of the solar system is from an accretion event, well studied computationally and is backed up by direct observations within the milky way." Observations in the universe are model-dependent evidences for any model. This is ok, but the test of any model is that it makes predictions and is falsifiable. There are many failed predictions and evidences which falsify the standard model (Lambda-CDM). There are too many to cite and explain so for sake of time I will give one. Creationist physicist Dr. Russell Humphries made predictions about the magnetic fields of the planets in our solar system which, as we find out more about the planets in our solar system, are being vindicated. One in particular was his prediction of Mercury's magnetic field; the findings of NASA's Messenger spacecraft in 2008 fell right within the predictions of Dr. Humphries whereas other predictions made by secular astrophysicists fell short (http://creation.com...). Also you state that computational studies back up the standard model, but Dr. Humphries model fits the observable evidence much better so this cant be "our" best scientific explanation (http://creation.com...). You say, "My arguments regarding the atmospheric composition at the time stand on the solar system accretion models, as well as analysis of the atmospheric composition of other planets within our own solar system." Well if your arguments stand on the standard model, then your arguments will fall. Nevertheless, lets continue. You say, "Moreover, ironically, it may well be the case that the increased UV levels would actually drive the formation of nucleotides." Increased radiation from the sun would damage any formed RNA strands and would ultimately have oxidative effects (http://www.nature.com...). ". . .all reactions must have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight; that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals" (Cairns-Smith, A.G., Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life, Cambridge University Press, 1982). After reading some literature on encapsulation, I found the hypothesis to be very optimistic. There are just too many things which have to be "just right," such as the supposition of readily available and suitable lipids. Even if such molecules were produced, ions such as magnesium and calcium, which are themselves necessary for life and have two charges per atom, would combine with the fatty acids, and precipitate them, making them unavailable (http://origins.swau.edu...). You say, "My opponent asserts there is no evidence of self-replicating ribozymes, but this is demonstrably false, as this is exactly what has been reported numerous times in the literature. . ." These experiments done in controlled settings do not account for the following problem: "'Unless the molecule can literally copy itself,' Joyce and Orgel note, 'that is, act simultaneously as both template and catalyst, it must encounter another copy of itself that it can use as a template." Copying any given RNA in its vicinity will lead to an error catastrophe, as the population of RNAs will decay into a collection of random sequences. But to find another copy of itself, the self-replicating RNA would need (Joyce and Orgel calculate) a library of RNA that 'far exceeds the mass of the earth.' In the face of these difficulties, they advise, one must reject '. . .the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential. If you doubt this, ask yourself whether you believe that a replicase ribozyme would arise in a solution containing nucleoside 5'-diphosphates and polynucleotide phosphorylase!'" (http://www.arn.org...) There is also much evidence that the early Earth conditions, assuming the veracity of the geologic column, were not anaerobic or "reducing." (http://geology.gsapubs.org...) (http://creation.com...)