Life Comes From Life, Abiogenesis is not Verifiable. So in conclusion an eternal being must exist.

it's my second debate here, and I am trying to get a feel of the way the format works, it seems I have done myself an injustice by shortening the debate. But without much space left, I take this brief opportunity to offer all my thanks to my opponent for taking this debate. And before I proceed, I show my appreciation for my opponents witty reply to the second half of my above argument. Although, I will also briefly mention, my opponent gives no account for my input of a once prominent atheist turned Diest, Anthony Flew. or to my rebuttal of Dawkins and Krauss, But my opponent does openly admit in the previous round, Con states, "We also don't know how to create life from matter yet. That's true" So I take this as a concession, That abiogenesis is not verifiable. But my opponent seems to include the word YET at the end of her statement. as if stating that it will most certainly be possible in the future. Whereas, I suggest a more honest approach, would suggest, " As of yet, we do not know IF life arose from in-animate matter. " This approach leaves other options available as well as that of abiogenesis. I continue this round by mentioning, that both me and Con agree, the answer to the question, 'How did life arise', remains out of our grasp. it is a mystery to the both of us, we declare that it is not known to mainstream science and is speculated by religions as well as by science. I think it would be unfair, for Con to actually have to prove that life arose from inanimate matter, as we all know that can not be verified. Although that is the topic of my debate, Abiogenesis is not verifiable, is my fist claim. It seems Con is in agreement with me on this, as it is obviously not verifiable at present, but will it be sometime in the future,? Who knows. My opponent seem confident when she mentions, they haven't worked out how to make life from matter YET. I, on the other hand remain dubious, and am of the opinion that life is not solely material, and conclude that life has an elusive aspect, which is Spirit. At the same time, I would think it is rather un-fair, that I have to prove life arose by way of a creator, as we all know, that can not be verified, although I do mention in my debate, that life must come from God. I am taking a position of the most likely outcome. As we have no evidence of 'Life' being a solely material substance, we can assume this elusive aspect to life, The spirit, might possibly exist. So since we know, that life is not able to be created from any type of chemical composition, Even though they have the exact chemical composition of a living entity, they are unable to compile the exact chemical compositions together and replicate life. But lets look at how we know how life occurs. Life comes from life, We have evidence of how life occurs daily, and it only occurs from a pre-existing life. which when we regress, must come to a point of the first living thing. I argue that our original ancestor is an eternal living being, obviously something must have always existed to be able to give life to other entities. this is the conclusion, I have evidence that life comes from a pre-existing life, I have evidence for that, In-fact it is the only evidence we have, for life to occur, a pre-existing life must exist, so if life can only come from a pre-existing life, it seems evident, a pre-existing life, ie God, must have always existed. which fits in perfectly with an attribute of God, to be neither created, or destroyed. My evidence is, that life occurs from life, and that is he only evidence we have of life occurring, We can assume that life is solely material, but we have no evidence for it, only supporting arguments. but may I mention, that to find the secret of life has been one of the greatest quests of humanity, sought out by rulers and Kings, and the greatest minds throughout history, it is not just a topic that has been swept under the rug, and the fact is, the secret remains elusive. so maybe there is some strength to my argument, that life is not solely material, there are also strong supporting arguments of life having a spiritual aspect and the spirit existing. . http://www.scienceofsouls.com... While Con determines, life occurring has nothing to do with God and is not necessarily by chance, Con introduces a third option, which she did not mention. but states we should not jump to conclusions, and invoke a supernatural being, God. So we can determine by way of analysis, that life has not been discovered to be material, Simply it's not hard to work out. All the atoms that make up my body, are all replaced every so often, so in actuality, we take on a new body, the old body no longer exists, it is destroyed, but I am still existing, even though the old body no longer exists, I still exist. also the source of consciousness or the mind is not located in any material part of our brains, and remains elusive as to weather the mind, does reside in the brain . A recent discovery suggests not. From New Scientist, Where does the mind reside? It's a question that's occupied the best brains for thousands of years. Now, a patient who is self-aware, despite lacking three regions of the brain thought to be essential for self-awareness" demonstrates that the mind remains as elusive as ever. . http://www.newscientist.com... One half of the world believes that our original ancestor was a tiny simple single celled organism, that self assembled itself which included an immense amount of information in it's coded chemistry, and the other half believes our original ancestor to be an ever existing powerfully intelligent supreme being. God.