Primordial soup theory of abiogenesis is more likely to be true than (Insert competing theory here).

I can see that my explanations will add much to the debate and to my opponents overall understanding of intelligent design as well as the sudden start model. Most of the statements were entirely ignoring the claims of Christianity as well as the supernatural aspects of those claims. I hope to alleviate that in my opponent's viewpoint. The fundamental belief system of Christianity and the Sudden Start model is the fact that God has indeed inserted Himself and His will into the universe. He has altered natural laws at His whims and Intelligent Design asserts this with falsifiable scientific formulas. . http://www.discovery.org... My opponent has stated in his reply that he is unaware of Intelligent Design argumentation. " I am unaware of any research being done that gives any positive results for ID" I would suggest to my opponent a through research through the scientific community researching Intelligent design would be in order and aid him in future debates. www. discoveryinstitute. com www. answersingenisis. com These two institutes support scientific efforts and will list and discuss the material of those ID scientists. Additionally, a third dimensional scientific means cannot initiate interaction between a fourth spatial dimension. It can only work within a third dimensional reference and measure the effects. The main source of this interdimensional interaction is via direct communication from the 4th Dimension. Personal Experience and the recorded interactions (the bible) are the current means for this. ******************* I will briefly address the content of my opponents reply due to character constraints. I hope to add to my opponent's viewpoint. I do feel however that all aspects of my opponents reply points fell dramatically short in making a positive case for the "Goo" Theory. << The big bang theory neither suggests eternality nor generation. It only recognizes an infinitely dense starting point of all matter with unknown physical laws yet changing physical laws after the bang itself. Ex Nihilo is not necessary for the argument to remain entirely intact. All known causes could be purely transformative and the argument still remains. Even the source of zero point material could be extra dimensional rather than ex nihilo. Physcial laws in either case, were still flux. In the positive for "ex nihilo" it is more logical. The necessity of ex nihilo remains in the concept for first cause. Natural Matter requires a first cause, mainstream cosmology does not recognize an eternality view of the zero point material. Thus ex nihilo is more logical than transformative. To compound that, the scripture's claim (revealed from the extra dimensional beings) that it was indeed ex nihilo. << My opponent has only suggested that Natural Laws were stable and that he asserts his viewpoint is superior due to no evidence to the contrary. I wish to direct my opponent to the very evidence to the contrary already stated. God has claimed the contrary and it has been recorded for us. The second point that I believed was missed that the "Goo" theory would have to show overwhelming evidence that the natural laws became static in light of the fact they started out in flux as posed by the commonly held big bang theory. The "Goo" theory just assumes that it was stable at the time it speculates life formed. In light of the speculative nature of both these assumptions and the claim directly recorded from a superior intelligence and society, I believe "sudden start" model remains superior. << I feel a bit redundant as my opponent continued to ignore the supernatural claims that sparks the "sudden start" theory. The fact that some superior being known as God came down to earth and made a bunch of claims is the whole point of the debate. Additionally the boiling pot metaphor is not quite accurate. Imagine if you stumbled upon a boiling pot continuing to boil despite that the Stove is not plugged in. To compound that a 15ft Tall white robed, bronzed face angel with a flaming sword states he is causing it to boil… That would be more than sufficient reason to assume a non-natural cause of the boiling pot. << My opponent points to the work not having a peer review. That is quite to the contrary. Even as of this article the work has been under peer review for 10 years. However, noone is quick to say this is correct research. They are waiting for more evidence one way or another. The teams have developed a ton of data none of it having been refuted yet or in 10 years have they found a flaw in the research. Every bit of data points to a differing alpha constant. The dissenting opinions are not on the team but other scientist who find a concept of differing alpha within the universe hard to believe. NOT that they have data pointing to something different. If they are correct this again only points to the fine tuning argument, true… but more specifically just another example that naturalism shows itself as limited in its viewpoint and continues to make assumptions inaccurately. <<< Concerning my opponents "viewpoint" on Christianity. My opponent claims that Christianity as a whole is inconsistent about how life began. That is an illogical statement. Science as a whole has been inconsistent about a lot of things. Do I toss out science as a means of understanding the world? Secondly I do not know of a single denomination that asserts that God did not "suddenly start" life. There may be individuals but I do not know of any mainstream denominations. At that, I do not know any historical interpretations pre Darwin in which Christians belief in Genesis account was other than literal. <<< Concerning my opponents claim, Ancient people claimed a lot of things that were wrong… They also claimed a lot of things that were right. The baby should be tossed out with the bathwater? Also modern people have claimed a lot of things that were wrong… Global warming scandal, Monsanto and Genetically modified foods are safe, the more processed your food the better it is for you! I could go on but I won't. << This just points to the different methods that are used. Empiricism only works if all facets are taken into account. Naturalism cannot do this as it only views the natural and cannot account for the Supernatural involvement. The supernatural involvment is only logical considering the evidences. **** Again I want to assert that nothing was meaningful in my opponents reply. A lot of nuh uh's and reinterpretations. However, the scienctific understanding below shows that a "Sudden Start" theory is to be preferred. 1)Generation of all matter then generation of no matter ex nihlo with zero need for slow successive changes. 2)Due to the generation of all matter; Physics having changed at least once in the known universe. 3)Physics being localized to this Galaxy and open to change within the universe. 4)Mathematics postulating a 4th Spatial Dimension 5)Overwhelming number of Historic Claims of interaction with beings and places adjacent to our own. 6)Primordialism of low certainty. 7)Christianity claims a succession of single short term events for the generation of life. I look forward to a response with more impact from my opponent.