Abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for life.

First of all, when the word "Possible" appears in the title of a debate, one would expect to see some works in the mathematical field of Probability & Statistics. Pro didn't even present an estimated probability of life forming from non living material. All what Pro presented was a story. This turned into this then turned into this then turned into this then came the first cell. When we're discussing the possibility of Abiogenesis, one must calculate the yield rate of each step and then multiply the probabilities to reach the ultimate probability. Then iterate this probability by the available simultaneous trials since the big bang. This is the only way to theoretically predict the possibility. Experimentally, I think mankind is way behind to fully test this. You see, the more you describe how simple the first cell was, the more you make it easier for scientists to create it in labs, and we all know that didn't happen. And please don't rely on that source that mentions the generation of new lifeforms through genetic mutation, because they didn't create life from non-living things. I'm guessing there are thousands of scientists from around the world trying to put some strands of RNA in fatty acid membranes and whatever else there needs to be in an attempt to create a living cell from non-living material. We all know, of course, no one succeeded.The only glimpse of hope for Abiogenesis is the Miller-Urey experiment. In the following, I will show you how this very experiment can work as a proof against Abiogenesis and not for it. I will use the same method of calculations I used in round 2 trying to predict the amount of functioning proteins the Miller-Urey experiment would produce:Let's assume the Miller-Urey experiment, in 13 days, produced only 0.01 grams of amino acids = 0.01x6.023E23/75(molecular weight of glycine)= 8E19 molecule. And let's assume it was given a period of one day (the last day of the two week experiment) to try and produce proteins (specifically our small 32 long protein). The total number of events will be equal to 1 day in nanoseconds multiplied by the number of amino acid molecules (8E19), divided by 32 = 8E13 * 8E19 / 32 = 2E32 event (simultaneous and continuing for a whole day). From my argument in round 2, I concluded the probability of producing a functional protein from a set of 32 amino acids to be 1.08E-19. But we have a lot more events. This should lead to protein production with an estimated amount of 2E32 * 1.08E-19 = 2.16E13 protein molecules!!!Do you know what this means? It means that I, Moze, a creationist, predict (through my generous theoretical calculations) that the Miller-Urey experiment will produce 2.16E13 protein molecules in one day. However, we all know that it didn't produce one single protein molecule. This means that my original calculations were far more generous than I would have ever imagined. I was way off by 13 orders of magnitude. This is very serious.Finally, I would like to point out some flaws in your argument:- "Early cells were likely small RNA strands enclosed in fatty acid membranes that have been shown to form naturally and can allow nucleotides to cross the membrane [6]"The annoying part is "have been shown to form naturally". This sentence, whether it speaks of fatty acids or RNA strands, is totally misleading. It claims there is a natural force that governs the molecular interactions and leads them to form RNA strands of Fatty acids. This is totally different than the source you have referenced ([6]). In the source, it only speaks of spontaneous formation for both, and we both know what spontaneous means. It means by chance. Plus you said:"It have been shown". This is also misleading because it leads you to think the experiment conducted proved this. Allow me to quote the source:"Recent experiments suggest it would have been possible for genetic molecules similar to DNA or to its close relative RNA to form spontaneously". The language used in the source is very shakey "would have been possible" unlike my opponent who decided to use the word "shown" which is closer to "proved". I might be exaggerating in the last one. Please consider it as an advice to be more clear to our audience.- You mentioned there are 2.5E112 efficient ligases of a 220 nuleotide RNA. But you didn't mention the total number of combinations. My humble calculation says it it is equal to 4.7E198. Now that is mind boggling!! If you disagree with my calculation, please give me your version.You said you barely scratched the surface. I really respect your effort, but some of it was unnecessary. Please try to focus on the probability argument. We both have to get our hands dirtier with numbers in order to reach the truth.Respect & PeaceMoze