Every experiment in abiogenesis has failed produce even one single celled organism. The natural occurrence of amino acids essential to life does not constitute life, there you have no evidence of abiogenesis. ribonucleotides and amino acids have no ability to enclose themselves within a hydrophobic membrane.they have no ability to arrange themselves in highly complex patterns.

DNA contains information. it is a code. as far as we know, codes are created exclusively from minds, indicating a creator. why would evolution produce various levels of DNA Repair and DNA proof-reading in the genome of all living things? these processes remove mutations- the mechanism that supposedly allows evolution to occur in the first place. see the contradiction?

"Every experiment in abiogenesis has failed produce even one single celled organism. The natural occurrence of amino acids essential to life does not constitute life, there you have no evidence of abiogenesis. "

It constitutes the possibility of naturally occurring life. We have shown the creation of organic material that not only consists of amino acids but also adenine which is one of the bases for the creation of DNA. Given enough time a simply reconstruction is all that is needed to get the right combination to create the rest of the bases. Abiogenesis requires time to work, it's not immediate.

"DNA contains information. it is a code. as far as we know, codes are created exclusively from minds, indicating a creator."

It looks like a code because we translate it as so, it isn't a code.

"why would evolution produce various levels of DNA Repair and DNA proof-reading in the genome of all living things? these processes remove mutations- the mechanism that supposedly allows evolution to occur in the first place. see the contradiction?"

This fucking right here is what I was talking about you ignorant fool, I already explained to you MUTATION IS NOT THE MECHANISM THAT ALLOWS EVOLUTION TO OCCUR READ A FREAKING TEXTBOOK. Mutation speeds up the process of evolution in certain ways, good or bad for that specific organism, it however is not a primary factor. Natural selection and natural gene variations are what drive evolution.

Therefor, no contradiction.

"It constitutes the possibility of naturally occurring life."

it is not possible for amino acids and all the parts of an organism to arrange themselves in specific ways and in specific places. your arguments is equivalent to saying that cold weather can produce ice, therefore it can produce ice cream, and slushies

"It looks like a code because we translate it as so, it isn't a code"

It's a code because it contains information.

mutations are a necessary part of evolution. natural selection can only select from pre-existing traits. no mutations=no evolution. and according to your theory, gene variation occurs because of mutations.

-If the information/materials are there, it can happen. If it's cold around water, salt, vanilla, and it's very windy, you may get ice cream after a long enough period. It may not taste good but material wise it would be ice cream.

-If you want to classify a code as that fine, but that in no way constitutes someone having to create the code. A light can start flickering due to a power surge and produce morse code, it means nothing.

-Yes necessary, not a driving factor anymore. Introduction of new genetic information (or just differently arranged genetic factors, not "new genetic information" because you twist that to mean something different.) and basic gene flow with variations are the driving factors of evolution with mutations occurring to spread out a gene pool.

would it be rational*

sorry, i'm tired

-Incomparable analogy, the bike is equally usable in every unique configuration that it could possibly make, each results in a bike, just not one we find usable. It would be comparable that if every time you got a piece that worked with the frame it stayed in the frame and did so until it was a working bike.

-Yes and flickering lights can use morse code to sign "Heil Hitler", this sort of information couldn't come from natural processes, there's just no way.

-I'm saying previous mutations combined with genetic variation/drift/natural selection can result in DNA repair yes.

-"the bike is equally usable in every unique configuration that it could possibly make,
What? obviously some combination of pieces would be completely useless.
"It would be comparable that if every time you got a piece that worked with the frame it stayed in the frame and did so until it was a working bike. "
But that's not how genetics works. mutations are removed, and added randomly. it's not directional towards any increase in complexity or development of new traits.

-this would be a coincidence. it's not a coincidence that all DNA contains instructions and coded information. you made an insane comparison.

-but you've never adequately explained how.

I'm trying to think of an analogy that adequately conveys how insane this belief is. heres my best shot:

its like believing that removing and adding bricks from a wall can create machinery that does this process for you.

therefore there you have no evidence of abiogenesis****

I think it's neat.

I think it's a stupid idea that contradicts modern science.

I'm not sure how it contradicts modern science, the idea of how the first organisms came about has been up to debate for some time. At least, I have never heard a well backed theory for it.

I've explaied some it's flaws in this thread.

And I disagree with some of it, as is tradition on religious board.