Abiogenesis is the more probable explanation for the origin of life

"All my opponent can do now is ask me the same questions as any other doubter of a Master Designer has asked me in the past six years." Questions that need to be answered. You are making assertions without evidence, so they can be ignored without evidence. "He has not added any other arguments to support his plagiarized evidence that he has Googled up and added to this debate." You have not refuted any of my evidence. I have filled my burden of proof, you have not filled yours. I do not need to bring up any more evidence, you need to present some. I also did not plagiarize any evidence. Plagiarism- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. I gave credit to those that found the evidence. That means that I did not plagiarize anything. "Google evidence is NOT sufficient evidence to give you any significant knowledge to understand how the origin of life transpired." Evidence- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Empirical Evidence- a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. I have shown the results of experiments and observations, which means that I have presented real, empirical evidence. There is no definition for "Google evidence" so I assume you mean evidence that you looked up. This is clearly false as much evidence must been looked up in order to know about it. If you do not look things up or are presented evidence from an unreliable source than you are spouting your opinion, which is not fact. If the evidence presented to you cannot be confirmed by observation and/or experimentation than the evidence presented is not reliable. I have presented reliable, empirical evidence to support my claim. I filled my burden of proof, you have not. "The evidence that I use to support my claims is the continued confidence in what I testify to wherever I make these claims as I do this on a daily basis in the community of Campbell, CA., and on several debate websites." Confidence is not evidence. Confidence- the feeling or belief that one can have faith in or rely on someone or something. Evidence- the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Feelings and beliefs are not facts. Evidence is what backs up those beliefs. "The Truth never changes and He's the one who taught me the knowledge to know how we were created." You have a burden of proof to fill. What evidence do you have that a God even gave you knowledge? Until you give evidence of this you are but words. "There is no evidence that the Truth exists in this world that can only be observed." You are correct that not everything can be directly observed. We have never directly observed a black hole, but we know it is there. We have never directly observed quantum fluctuations, but we know they happen. We have found ways to discover much of what we cannot directly observe. "The invisible world that no man can see has to be taught from our invisible Creator by using the observed illusions of this world as analogies to help us saints understand our invisible created existence within His mind." I already pointed out that we can learn about things that we cannot directly observe through science. If you want to say that God has to teach people about certain things you must back it up with evidence. You also keep referring to yourself as a saint. Saint- a person acknowledged as holy or virtuous and regarded in Christian faith as being in heaven after death. Who has acknowledged you as holy or virtuous? The process of sainthood is as follows: 1. A local bishop investigates the candidate's life and writings for evidence of heroic virtue. The information uncovered by the bishop is sent to the Vatican. 2. A panel of theologians and the cardinals of the Congregation for Cause of Saints evaluate the candidate's life. 3. If the panel approves, the pope proclaims that the candidate is venerable, which means that the person is a role model of Catholic virtues. 4. The next step toward sainthood is beatification, which allows a person to be honored by a particular group or region. In order to beatify a candidate, it must be shown that the person is responsible for a posthumous miracle. Martyrs -- those who died for their religious cause -- can be beatified without evidence of a miracle. On Oct. 20, 2003, Mother Teresa was beatified. She is now known as Blessed Mother Teresa of Kolkata. 5. In order for the candidate to be considered a saint, there must be proof of a second posthumous miracle. If there is, the person is canonized. Have you done any of these? "Since we're nothing but invisible wavelengths, we had to be taught who were are." Where is your evidence that we are invisible wavelengths? "Otherwise, we would have continued on believing that what we see is real, even though most of what we see eventually disappears, especially on the day of the Lord when the earth will begin to shake violently before the crust is melted into hot molten lava. All the amino acids will be melted into this hot lava and be changed for the next age. Never again will God use science and religion to keep His people deceived from knowing who they are within His mind as His dreams." Again, evidence required for this. "Most likely, my opponent will trash this writing by separating all the paragraphs and asking me to support my claims like all unbelieving atheist and Christians do. Predicting what I will do based off of what I have done. "They have to do this because they have no knowledge to refute the knowledge I confidently share with any believer who reads my writings." No, it is because you cannot prove what you are saying so there is no reason to believe what you say. "Only believers were chosen by our Creator to read His testimonies and believe the good news that comes from His created voice, my true invisible created existence within His mind." Again, evidence required for this claim. "Unbelievers like my opponent hate the Truth with a passion." Actually, I love the truth. Thing is, truth has evidence. You have presented NO evidence. "In fact, it was already prophesied thousands of years ago that these unbelievers would reject His created Voice, also known as His Word." Requirements of a supernatural prophecy: 1. It has to be a prophecy Now this may sound a bit obvious, but the original line must have been intended as a prophecy and not merely a story. So if a line says "a house will fall in a storm" this is just a story and not a prophecy of the fall of an empire. The author must make it clear to his readers that he is making a prophecy and not just speaking in general. 2. It must be clear The prophecy must be instantly clear as to what it is foretelling; it cannot simply be so vague that any event could fulfil it. For example "a house will fall in a storm" is not a prophecy as anything could be interpreted as fulfilling it and those who hear it would not know. If a prophecy is supposed to be about someone, then it should make this clear from the beginning and not be left for future generations to try and guess who it is. 3. It cannot be simply guesswork If two armies are going to war, I could make a lucky guess and predict the winning army. This wouldn"t be much of a prophecy as any lay person could guess that. For a prophecy to count as evidence, it must be so specific that not even someone who studied the topic could have made an educated guess. The more unlikely the prophecy, the more impressive it is, so something that was completely unexpected would be the sign of a strong prophecy. 4. It must occur before the event happens If I was to tell you about September 11th, this wouldn"t be a prophecy but rather history. We must be sure that all prophecies occurred before the events in order to be genuine. Likewise we have to make sure we are reading the original accounts and not seeing some that were changed later to give the impression of a prophecy. 5. There cannot be self-fulfilment If it is prophesised that a great ruler will conquer a town, then people will conquer that town in order to claim that they are that ruler. Or if it predicted that Israel will become a country again, then people will try to rebuild Israel so as to fulfil the prophecy. Nor can later writers edit the text to give the impression that the prophecy was fulfilled. 6. The event must be unique If I say "a king will be murdered by his son" this could apply to any monarchy anywhere. Loads of kings have been stabbed in the back by people they trust, including family. So a prophecy must refer to a specific event and specific people. 7. The prophecy must be falsifiable The prophecy must have the potential to fail or be proven wrong. If there is no time limit on the prophecy then we could have to wait thousands of years before it is "fulfilled" at which point it is not a prophecy but a matter of probability. A prophecy can only be evidence if it could have failed as well as succeeded. 8. It cannot be something that always happens Saying something like "There will be earthquakes" is both vague and also is something that has always happened. A prophecy must be either specific about it, like "There will be an earthquake on July 6th, 2015 that destroys Los Vegas" or it is not a prophecy. "Here are a few prophecies to support my claim that unbelievers will reject the Truth;" None of those "prophecies" pass the test. _____________________________________ My opponent has resorted to fallacies and has gone off topic, another rule broken by him. He has not provided any evidence for his claim and has not refuted my evidence. Next round is round 5, where the rules state there cannot be any new arguments, only rebuttals. This means that he must refute me.