It is probable Life arose from Naturalistic Processes

"However my opponents contention the entire first part seems to say that Science has figured out a lot of things without using anything supernatural so they will probably figure out where life came from without using supernatural explanations" While this is a decent distillation of what I said, strikeeagle seems to have missed the significance of it. Certainly, I didn't mean to suggest that this is proof that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is correct. As a historical event, the explanation for how life arose can only be know indirectly and probabilistically. My argument suggests that the immense number of successes of the scientific method and naturalism in the past suggest that it is probable it will be successful in the future. This established the probability mentioned in the resolution. My further arguments were meant to show that life arising naturalistically is possible given current scientific understanding, which is a prerequisite to probability. "1. Why did they stop just at the production of molecules similar to those found in living beings why did they not continue to wait for life to form why did they not let it turn into life" Life arose someone on the surface of earth around 4 billion years ago, probably in the oceans. The volume of area available must have been staggering. The current ocean volume is 1.5 x10^9 (ie over a billion) cubic kilometers.[1] On the other hand, the Miller-Urey experiment took place in a piece of glassware with a volume much less than a single cubic kilometer. The earth formed out of the accretion disk of the solar system about 4.5 billion years ago. Thus molecules, especially of interest those containing carbon, had about half a billion years to interact and form over a humongous volume. The Miller-Urey experiment took place over the course of a single week, in a volume more than 10 orders of magnitude smaller. Its unreasonable to expect that life would arise in such a small experiment within any human being's lifetime. "2. Why don't we create a cell now at this point we have the ability to move individual atoms and we know the complete molecular structure of a living cell so why doesn't someone go and recreate life what is preventing them" Nothing is stopping us. In fact, Craig Venter has already done it![2] "On the final paragraph how I am going to question how does an object become self replicating how does it suddenly decided to move in order to consume food to further it's existence when does will power occur." Do you know how DNA replicates? It is formed of a strand of nucleotides (A, T, G, C) bonded together into a long chain. Each nucleotide has a complementary form with which it will form hydrogen bonds (ie A and T bond, and G and C)[3]. As RNA forms from DNA templates (at least in modern times- DNA is NOT NECESSARY for RNA to replicate) it is obviously capable of forming bonds between complimentary nucleotides as well. Now remember, you asked how an object COULD become self replicated, not what actually happened. What follows is speculation but it is based on solid scientific foundations. In other words, it is 100% possible for a molecule to become self replicating under current scientific understanding. Imagine 3 nucleotides happened to bond together in a short chain. Say... AAC. They are floating in this primordial sea, or perhaps stuck in the clay on shore (thats the latest theory)[3]. In any case, a T floating by at the right angle will be attracted to the As and a G floating by will be attracted to the C. If the hydrogen bonds were enough to keep the molecules in place a reaction could form whereby the two Ts and the G could become bound into their own chain. In fact, if you read my 3rd reference, it actually explains that the clay mentioned can catalyze such reactions. The clay also aids in the formation of fatty acid vesicles, which are spontaneously forming, primitive versions of cell membranes. Of course that is just one hypothetical explanation. There are many others. All of them possible, and in accordance with current knowledge.[4] If you want to know more I suggest you study the topic, as it really is quite fascinating. As a side note, your question betrays a serious misunderstanding of biochemistry. A cell does not "want" food or decide to seek it. It is purely mechanistic in its reaction to outside stimuli. Some things it is able to extract energy from and does so. This is "food". In higher animals such as mammals such a thing as "will" or "agency" seemingly starts to emerge, but that is far outside the scope of this debate. "Just one last question has anyone ever successfully recreated the Miller-Urey experiment since Miller and Urey" Yes. One of the scientists (Miller) even suggested in an interview that it was simple enough to be replicated by a high school science class. [5][6][7] 1. http://hypertextbook.com... 2. http://www.guardian.co.uk... 3. http://www.web-books.com... 4. http://www.teach12.com... 5. http://www.juliantrubin.com... 6. http://www.accessexcellence.org... 7. http://www.astrobio.net...