Earlier I had argued that evolution had been debunked, which led to debates. But here, I decided to write here about abiogenesis.
First let's define abiogenesis

Abiogenesis simply means formation of life from non life. This theory is used in explaining the origin of life. But there are problems with this theory.

1. There is no evidence of life emerging from non life: It is not possible for life to emerge from non life (organic). About 2000 years ago, Aristotle brought a similar theory known as spontaneous generation. That micro organisms could grow from non living. This theory was believed for almost 2000yrs which have truly hampered the development of science for years. Until Louis Pasteur debunked the theory, positing that life come from life (biogenesis)

2. Abiogenesis and Biogenesis cannot both be correct. There is enough evidence for biogenesis but no scientific evidence for abiogenesis, it is a mere speculation.
3. Evidence from chemistry and biochemistry : In chemistry and biochemistry there is no evidence for bio molecules(proteins, CHO) coming together to form a cell or complex biological structures.

all your points are logically incorrect.

Teempakguy:
all your points are logically incorrect.

OK. Give us the logically correct points

Kalatium:

OK. Give us the logically correct points

abiogenesis is an inescapable reality. it is quite obvious that life couldn't have always existed. even if a god was involved, he would have had to bring life from either nothing or non living things. in both cases, this is also known as abiogenesis.

the question science is asking is not that does abiogensis exist or that did it occur. it is that what exactly happened.

the theory of spontaneous generation is not even remotely related to the current theories. which imply a gradual evolution of complex molecules, driven by an influx of energy and the right combination of compounds.

Teempakguy:
abiogenesis is an inescapable reality. it is quite obvious that life couldn't have always existed. even if a god was involved, he would have had to bring life from either nothing or non living things. in both cases, this is also known as abiogenesis.

the question science is asking is not that does abiogensis exist or that did it occur. it is that what exactly happened.

the theory of spontaneous generation is not even remotely related to the current theories. which imply a gradual evolution of complex molecules, driven by an influx of energy and the right combination of compounds.

Like i said earlier
In chemistry and biochemistry there is no evidence for bio molecules(proteins, CHO) coming together to form a cell or complex biological structures
What really happened then is not abiogenesis

Kalatium:

Like i said earlier
In chemistry and biochemistry there is no evidence for bio molecules(proteins, CHO) coming together to form a cell or complex biological structures
What really happened then is not abiogenesis

can you link to a scientific article that confirms these claims?

Teempakguy:
can you link to a scientific article that confirms these claims?

Of course I can

Kalatium:

Of course I can

have you considered the possibility that you may have misunderstood the papers that you read?
there in fact is no direct evidence of molecular evolution from non life to life: I.e abiogenesis. but there is evidence that life is made of a complex array of ultimately simple molecules and studies conducted have shown that molecules do become more complex under certain circumstances.

from other branches of science, we know that complex molecules could never have always existed. they must have formed relatively recently. that is glaring evidence for abiogenesis.

if you wish to debate on the 'method', then you're welcome.

Teempakguy:
have you considered the possibility that you may have misunderstood the papers that you read?
there in fact is no direct evidence of molecular evolution from non life to life: I.e abiogenesis. but there is evidence that life is made of a complex array of ultimately simple molecules and studies conducted have shown that molecules do become more complex under certain circumstances.

from other branches of science, we know that complex molecules could never have always existed. they must have formed relatively recently. that is glaring evidence for abiogenesis.

if you wish to debate on the 'method', then you're welcome.

Yes n'a... That's why its called science

Don't have time to type but. For more info visit http://creation.mobi/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis