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

Hello, I'm new to this website so I ask you to please forgive my clumsy introduction and debate-setting. Gileandos has agreed in the comments section of an open challenge to debate the topic of abiogenesis on the grounds of the above resolution. I'd like to debate abiogenesis because it seems on this website, the topic comes up often, but is usually sidestepped. There are more than a few debates on evolution, in which the creationist/intelligent design advocate will say that evolution can't explain how life began to which the evolutionist will invariably respond "of course evolution can't, they're different fields". While they are indeed different fields, I think that abiogenesis is an important and rarely discussed topic. The terms are as follows: -While semantics, smoke-and-mirrors, crafty mathematical or logical proofs, and other parlor tricks are undeniably fun, I'd prefer my opponent keep the debate on the substantive issues at hand, not my sloppy use of language -The debate should remain civil, I can handle the occasional jibe, off color joke or whimsical assault on my character but, the arguments need to stay academic. -I will be defending primordial soup theory as a general concept, not any particular position within primordialism (the debate is not to be about whether it was sea vents or the sun that provided the necessary heat for proto life to form. Rather, it is to be about whether or not life began according to some sort of Primordial soup theory). For readers unfamiliar with abiogenesis, I suggest that you peruse the following wikipedia articles. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Since I don't know what sort of explanation for the beginnings of life my opponent will be defending, I can't engage any specific arguments of his (though I suspect he will be defending some form of Creationism). However I will outline my position and arguments for Primordial Soup theory. I reserve the right to expand upon, and clarify these arguments. Generalized Primordial Soup theory This will be my general position, though I may draw from different specific hypotheses within the field to defend the plausibility and probability of this general position. 1. ~3850 mya, during and shortly (geologically speaking) after the late heavy bombardment period, the earth's atmosphere was primarily composed of things like methane, ammonia, water, hydrogen sulfide, phosphate, carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide. This is known as "chemically reducing". Oxygen (molecular oxygen that is) did not come to the scene in large amounts until ~2000 mya. 2. In this environment, some monomers (including amino acids) are able to form with the catalyst of either electricity or ultraviolet light. This was demonstrated in 1953 in the now famous Miller-Urey experiment (the experiment yielded more amino acids than are found naturally in life). 3. These organic molecules accumulated in particular areas (probably, though not necessarily, deep sea vents). This formed a "soup" 4. Polymers formed from this soup. Some of these polymers were self replicating. Proteinoid microspheres formed, creating (proto)cellular integrity, as well as other functions of life. (This was confirmed by a series of experiments in the 70s by Sidney W. Fox). Through other transformations, fueled by natural selection, these early "cells" began to resemble modern life. Arguments: 1. Primordial soup theory is accepted by the scientific consensus (Though there is disagreement on certain specifics, the validity of the theory is withstanding peer review). 2. Primordial soup theory accurately predicts when life formed (the time frame suggested by primordial soup corresponds with the early fossil record and indirect evidence of early photosynthesis). Additionally, there are "relics" of the proto life (an example of this is thermosynthesis still occurring in cell division, seed germination and thelike). 3. Contrary to popular belief, scientists have recreated many of the steps necessary for life to begin (either with experiments or theoretical models). These include but are not limited to: a. Creation of amino acids from early earth atmospheres (Miller-Urey experiment) b. Spontaneous creation of proteinoid membranes or "microspheres" (Sidney Fox's experiments) c. Creation of self sustaining and self replicating RNA (Lincoln & Joyce). d. Models explaining pre-life metabolisms (see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... also, pretty much everything by Dr. Muller has to do with early metabolisms). e. Models explaining assorted phenomena such as homochirality. Conclusion: Although research into the field of abiogenesis is relatively young, great strides have been made. Primordial soup theory offers the most testable hypotheses and predictions compared to other positions. It fits the available evidence about when and where life on earth began, and the process follows simple and proven chemical and Darwinian laws. Thank you, and Bonne Chance!