The Origin of the Universe

[lilphil1989]

>We all know that life can’t generate spontaneously from inorganic or inanimate matter

No.
For a start, you can't really prove a negative. That's why I don't go around saying that I can prove that your man in the sky doesn't exist, that would make me as ignorant as theists who claim absolute certainty.

I would also suggest that, having little or no knowledge of chemistry or biology (you seem to regard science with disdain, correct me if I'm wrong), you are not really qualified to say this.

maggots don't spontaneously generate from dead meat

Irrelevant, and I'm pretty sure you know this.
We might have to start using fr0d0's buzzer here

No-one has ever suggesting that an advanced lifeform (yes, I'd include maggots/flies in that group) suddenly appeared out of a collection of organic molecules.

Even the oatmeal about these Big Bang Singularities; they stubbornly pose a problem for physicists because of known physical laws that do not apply. (What a shame.)

oatmeal?
The big bang theory is based on observable evidence (hubble expansion, CMB).
Perhaps you'd like to suggest how the interpration of this evidence is incorrect?

I conclude this discussion humbly

hahahaha..... ha!
Oh wait... you're serious?

atheists use them to dishonestly excuse themselves to a lifestyle of excess and moral irresponsibility. You want to live your life your way - Fine, but don’t use science as an excuse to be immoral or even liberal.
>Holla back if you feelin' me!

It's a ridiculous theist stereotype (actually the words blatant lie might be better here) that atheists have no code of morals.
They just don't take them from the rambling writings of a stone age cult.

The whole point is that we don't believe there's anything to excuse ourselves from.

[Tiberius]

Who said anything about spontaneous generation? Abiogenesis says nothing of this. It is the study of how life can arise from inorganic matter. It doesn't say "one day inorganic matter, next day *poof* life". In fact ironically you stated "The question is how did the first nucleic acids arise." and this is precisely what abiogenesis is all about.

You should do some research into the experiments that have given rise to amino acids (the building blocks of life) out of a "soup" of inorganic matter. The Miller-Urey experiments did not conclusively prove it could be done, but they did succeed in showing that it was at least possible.

[lilphil1989]

Who said anything about spontaneous generation? Abiogenesis says nothing of this. It is the study of how life can arise from inorganic matter. It doesn't say "one day inorganic matter, next day *poof* life".

I suppose there has to be spontaneous generation of life somewhere, if only based on your definition of life.
At one point your collection of molecules doesn't obey all the criterions set for life (whatever they might), and in the next it does.

I agree that the point at which it occurs is quite arbitrary depending on how you define life, and anyway it's nothing like the spontaneous generation that Chris seems to think abiogenesis is about i.e complex lifeforms magically being arranged out of billions of organic molecules