Intelligent design is a more likely cause than Abiogenesis for the origin of life

First of all, Con was supposed to use round 2 to given opening arguments in favor of abiogenesis as agreed in round 1 and reiterated in my opening arguments in round 2. Instead, he presented a rebuttal instead of opening arguments. Second of all, Con seems to be confused between amino acids and peptides. Peptides are composed of multiple amino acids which are chained together by a reversable chemical process requiring dehydration. Third of all, Con accuses the scientific community about being wrong about what forces of nature cause peptide bonds to break down without presenting evidence for why the experts are wrong. Con: "What could possibly be allowing such amino acids to replicate normally without breaking part in the Universe, but then break apart in human hands? It couldn't be because humans are naive and ignorant compared to the Universe." Previously given link: http://evolutionpeptides.com... Fourth of all, he went against all modern doctrines of abiogenesis when he claimed, "The acid is stronger than water, so water will die if the acid takes over, which causes the entire reaction to defeat itself. Yes, bacteria is designed to build walls between water and acid. If their experiment did not include bacteria, then that's why it failed." Talk origins, a website dedicated to naturalism, and criticizes Christians for claiming that abiogenesis teaches that the primordial earth produced a living cell without prior stages. The early stages of abiogenesis involve chemicals creating amino acides which create peptides which create self replicating peptides. Previously given link: http://www.talkorigins.org... Now that I have addressed his rebuttal, I will continue with my original line of thought. To continue, I will first define logical possibility: capable of being described without self-contradiction. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is logically possible that a deity exists and that a deity created the universe as long as this deity is defined to have the necessary attributes such as powerful enough, smart enough, etc. That is not evidence that such a deity does exist; it merely shows that it might be true that such a deity exists. Proving that such a deity exists is practically impossible and outside the scope of this argument. For Con to state that such a deity does not exist, he must show that it would be logically impossible for such a deity to exist; that is, he would have to show a logical contradiction based on well established facts. So then, if it is possible that such a deity exists, it is also possible that such a deity created the first living cell on earth. A keen reader might notice this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Whether the first cell ever to exist on earth evolved into other species is beyond the scope of this debate. I'm focusing specifically on the logical possibility of an intelligent source creating the first cell. So if we were to revisit Occam's Razor, the existence of a deity should logically be considered as one of the available options, because it is within the scope of possible solutions to the topic at hand. However, "There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life." I have pointed out that the most commonly accepted model for the construction of the first cell is a "bottom up" approach starting with self replicating peptides. However, this approach has proven to fail so drastically, that others have taken the "top down" approach. The following is a long quote: No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be focused on chemosynthesis of polymers. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen and Jack Szostak. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at The Institute for Genomic Research, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached.[69][70] http://en.wikipedia.org... Models for the creation of the first cell have repeatedly failed. This is not a new field of study. The term biogenesis was coined in 1869. Before that time, spontaneous generation was the most commonly held scientific view. Since then, scientists have been looking for another explanation and have failed to produce even a proof of concept. Every past and current mode has either been proven wrong, or not shown to have evidence (for example the idea that aliens seeded the earth). http://en.wikipedia.org... To reiterate, all current models, whether bottom up or top down, have been shown to be ineffective. In contrast, the proposition of an intelligent source for the first cell is a simple solution with the fewest possible assumptions. Therefore, Occam's Razor suggestions that an intelligent source for the first cell is the most likely proposition, and should be accepted. The reason this cannot and will not be accepted by the scientific community is that super nature events are outside the scope of science, and most of the scientific community are either skeptics or atheists. If it is in fact the case that an intelligent source (aliens or deity) seeded our planet with the first cell, science may never come up with a solution, but that will not prevent them from trying. Additionally, even if science did produce a viable hypothesis of how it could possibly happen, that does not prove that it actually did happen in that way. It may be a more complicated solution using natural causes, but that does not mean it is more likely than a simple super natural cause. It just gives atheists peace of mind that they can ignore the evidence that there exists a deity.