Abiogenesis VS Creationism

The number of steps required for atheistic abiogenesis is totally improbably. First, a universe needs to come out of nothing that forms the laws of physics and the laws of chemistry perfectly to sustain life. Second, a solar system needs to form and a planet in a habitable zone. Then water needs to somehow get to earth and finally somehow life form from basic structures and then eventually give rise to complex life like humans. Common sense states that such a thing is totally impossible. As David Plaisted notes [4]: 

Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small.  

"The law of biogenesis states that life must come from life. All life comes from life and all cells come from cells."

"[T]he time at which life arose on Earth make[s] use of two types of evidence. First, astrophysical and geophysical studies provide a timescale for the formation of Earth and the Moon and from this evidence, we can deduce a habitability boundary, which is the earliest point at which Earth became habitable."

"Second, biosignatures in geological samples, including microfossils, stromatolites, and chemical isotope ratios, provide evidence for when life was actually present. From these observations we can deduce a biosignature boundary, which is the earliest point at which there is clear evidence that life existed."

"should abiogenesis be true, we should experience life being spontaneously formed every single day."

"Once we start ripping apart the fundamental basic units of life, we see that life is extremely complex and without one of those pieces life will fall apart and will no longer be considered living"

"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.” 

"There’s no plausible way to get complex organisms that require new genetic information and new neurons from a single cell."

"How exactly does get from marine life to land life and then back to marine life? There is absolutely no plausible mechanism."

"First, a universe needs to come out of nothing."

"a solar system needs to form and a planet in a habitable zone. Then water needs to somehow get to earth and finally somehow life form from basic structures."

"Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero."

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design. 

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects. 

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly. 

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed. 

Design is always the result of intelligent agency — by definition. It’s always top-down. Design is a mental act. Complexity can arise without intelligent design, but complexity is not the same thing as design. All design arises by intelligent agency, because that’s how design is defined.

ID and Darwinism are merely two opposite conclusions drawn from the same question: is there teleology in biology? If there is, ID is true. If there isn’t,

Others balk at the notion of a reducing atmosphere because of what is known as the "faint young sun" paradox. As geologist James Kasting of Pennsylvania State University explained 2 years ago in Science (12 February 1993, p. 920), the sun likely had about 30% less luminosity when Earth was formed. If the planet had the same atmosphere as today, its mean surface temperature would have been below the freezing point of water; it would be a giant iceball. As geologic evidence suggests that Earth had liquid water early in its history, Kasting and others maintain that Earth's early atmosphere must have been rich in carbon dioxide (C02),which, through the greenhouse effect, would have kept the surface toasty. But these high levels of CO2, a neutral agent, also would have prevented a Miller-Urey scenario.

Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes. In theory, an RNA replicase could exist and code for its own replication. The first synthesized RNA replicase was four times longer than any RNA that could form spontaneously (4). In addition, it was able to replicate only 16 base pairs at most, so it couldn't even replicate itself (5). 

Enzymes cannot be synthesized in the absence of RNA and ribosomes. 

Nucleosides and amino acids cannot form in the presence of oxygen, which is now known to have been present on the earth for at least 4.3 billion years ago (6), although life arose at least ~3.5 billion years ago (7). 

"neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors...the weight of evidence indicates that nonhuman animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”

Cambridge Declaration On Consciousness

"P1: Whatever is in motion is moved by another.

P2: There exists beings in motion.

P3: There cannot be an infinite regression of moved beings.

C: Therefore, there must be a first mover."

"astrophysical and geophysical studies...biosignatures in geological samples, including microfossils, stromatolites, and chemical isotope ratios...studies with molecular phylogenetics and records of the changing level of oxygen in the atmosphere...to determine the habitability boundary could be as early as 4.5 Ga, the earliest possible time at which Earth had a stable crust and hydrosphere, or as late as 3.9 Ga, the end of the period of heavy meteorite bombardment...the time of the habitability boundary. Evidence from carbon isotope ratios and stromatolite fossils both point to a time close to 3.7 Ga. Life must have emerged in the interval between these two boundaries. The time taken for life to appear could, therefore, be within 200 Myr or as long as 800 Myr."

Constraining the Time Interval for the Origin of Life on Earth.

"In the past, the geothermal release of decay heat, emitted from the decay of the isotopes potassium-40, uranium-235 and uranium-238 was considerably greater than it is today...therefore would have been capable of supporting natural nuclear fission reactors with common light water as its moderator"

Con's Source #14 From Round 1

"The theory of intelligent design does not propose a mechanism (a strictly or necessarily materialistic cause) for the origin of biological information."

Con, Last Round

"Rather, [creationism] proposes an intelligent or mental cause."

"The Miller-Urey experiment shoots itself in the foot. The experiment was intelligently designed and without the scientists, such an experiment would never be successful."

"Basically, Miller and Urey relied on a "reducing" atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms."

"critics of the soup theory point out that there is no sustained driving force to make anything react."

"Neither RNA nor DNA can be synthesized in the absence of enzymes."

"The theory of intelligent design does not propose a mechanism (a strictly or necessarily materialistic cause) for the origin of biological information. Rather, it proposes an intelligent or mental cause."