Abiogenesis: Impossible, or no?

[Creed of Heresy]

So I've been getting into discussions lately about abiogenesis and how it either does or does not make sense. During one of my discussions, this link was brought up.

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

I was dubious of the article...since it was basically written by a creationist. HOWEVER, it's not a young-earth creationist and he does not go into creationist talk. It's basically a refutation on abiogenesis.

Currently, I am unsure of where I stand on it. It seems to be put together rather well but I can't help but feel like there's a few instances of jumping to conclusions. I want you guys' and girls' opinions on this, and if possible, I'd like it if someone could counter-refute this, since I'm basically on the precipice of my ability to understand this stuff now.

[Minimalist]

If you listen to xtian shitwits nothing is possible.....

(Until science does it....and then they start making excuses for their inept god.)

[Anomalocaris]

With thousands of actual respectable scientists available in the world, why would you waste a single firing of neuron with something uttered by so contemptible a being as one who would be a creationist in this day and age ?

[Ben Davis]

Abiogenesis is experimentally proven. So far, we don't know the exact process by which life arose on earth but simple, chemical building blocks for life have been created in labs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=abiogenesis

[Creed of Heresy]

With thousands of actual respectable scientists available in the world, why would you waste a single firing of neuron with something uttered by so contemptible a being as one who would be a creationist in this day and age ?

All for the purpose of debate, I'm afraid. My friend brought it up and challenged me as a freethinker [he specifically used that term] to read it with an open mind. He kind of had me there so I was obligated to read through it. Alas, I uh...I haven't exactly grasped the entire thing involving abiogenesis entirely, hence why I put this up here, to see what others think and to get some resources to counter this article with.

[Cato]

Counter refute what? I don't care how many degrees this Bergman jackass has, he could have told us that we are as yet unable to provide definitive evidence of the hypothesis of abiogenesis without the charade of appearing to have said something important. This article is nothing more than a creationist hitpiece intended to leave the scientifically ignorant confused in order to assure them that the unspoken, but already accepted, notion that god did it can be accepted.

Bergman uses four words that should be a warning sign to anyone that might mistake this shit as serious scientific debate: nontheist, complexity, information, and probability.

Nontheist. He comes to the argument with the notion that god did it. He can't provide evidence for his proposition so his only available method of debate is to convolute what serious scientists are working on. What amuses me is that Bergman, despite his PhDs, acts as if scientists don't rigorously dispute all claims through peer review. He also would have the reader believe that our current knowledge or lack thereof regarding life's origins is all we'll ever know. He isn't interested in the science; he's only interested in sounding sciency to manipulate the already proven credulous fellow god botherers.

Complexity. I don't exist as a created blob of Cato. My body consists of the same shit that is strewn throughout the universe. I find it far more reasonable to accept the premise that what we call life is the result of a sequence of natural causes acting on proximate matter than to accept a bored tinkering phantasm. Inserting god makes things more complex.

Information. The fact that otherwise intelligent believers don't see through this canard is astounding. Things like DNA only 'appear' to have information because of the manner in which we try to understand things. Without a sentient being adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine would still exist where they are in other life's DNA. If I see a dragon or mickey mouse in a passing cloud, does this mean that the cloud is imbued with 'information'? Humans have evolved with an uncanny ability for pattern recognition. This is how we deal with perceptions. The fact that we name certain patterns does not impregnate the entity with information.

Probability. I really fucking hate this bit. The only purpose of this gambit is to attempt to say that our existence is next to impossible, so we must therefore trust that something with no evidence was required to cause it. Meaningless bullshit. How do I know? Because I'm here!!! So is the asshat using the argument. I don't care what invented probability is thrown in my face, my existence makes it a mindless consideration. I would never do it, but have often considered a situation where someone was pulling this shit face to face. I would love to reach up and punch them in the throat. As they attempt to take their next breathe I would look down and say "I bet you thought that was pretty improbable too".

[Creed of Heresy]

Counter refute what? I don't care how many degrees this Bergman jackass has, he could have told us that we are as yet unable to provide definitive evidence of the hypothesis of abiogenesis without the charade of appearing to have said something important. This article is nothing more than a creationist hitpiece intended to leave the scientifically ignorant confused in order to assure them that the unspoken, but already accepted, notion that god did it can be accepted.

Bergman uses four words that should be a warning sign to anyone that might mistake this shit as serious scientific debate: nontheist, complexity, information, and probability.

Nontheist. He comes to the argument with the notion that god did it. He can't provide evidence for his proposition so his only available method of debate is to convolute what serious scientists are working on. What amuses me is that Bergman, despite his PhDs, acts as if scientists don't rigorously dispute all claims through peer review. He also would have the reader believe that our current knowledge or lack thereof regarding life's origins is all we'll ever know. He isn't interested in the science; he's only interested in sounding sciency to manipulate the already proven credulous fellow god botherers.

Complexity. I don't exist as a created blob of Cato. My body consists of the same shit that is strewn throughout the universe. I find it far more reasonable to accept the premise that what we call life is the result of a sequence of natural causes acting on proximate matter than to accept a bored tinkering phantasm. Inserting god makes things more complex.

Information. The fact that otherwise intelligent believers don't see through this canard is astounding. Things like DNA only 'appear' to have information because of the manner in which we try to understand things. Without a sentient being adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine would still exist where they are in other life's DNA. If I see a dragon or mickey mouse in a passing cloud, does this mean that the cloud is imbued with 'information'? Humans have evolved with an uncanny ability for pattern recognition. This is how we deal with perceptions. The fact that we name certain patterns does not impregnate the entity with information.

Probability. I really fucking hate this bit. The only purpose of this gambit is to attempt to say that our existence is next to impossible, so we must therefore trust that something with no evidence was required to cause it. Meaningless bullshit. How do I know? Because I'm here!!! So is the asshat using the argument. I don't care what invented probability is thrown in my face, my existence makes it a mindless consideration. I would never do it, but have often considered a situation where someone was pulling this shit face to face. I would love to reach up and punch them in the throat. As they attempt to take their next breathe I would look down and say "I bet you thought that was pretty improbable too".

VERY much appreciated, Cato. I was kind of hoping for a more succinct way of tearing this guy apart and I couldn't exactly put anything very good together but that was a rather good deconstruction. I've been off my game lately, it seems. I probably should've noticed that bullshit from the get-go. Especially the "nontheist" thing. I think my ADD started showing. *lol*

This and articles I have found where abiogenesis has been proven to be feasible from experimentation pretty much gives me what I need to finally drill it into my friends' head that Dawkins is not just baselessly asserting the first-atom on nothing but belief. That's the crux of my friend's argument; he says that biologists, particularly atheists, claim that in order to believe something they need evidence but that there is no evidence for organic life coming from non-organic life and that they therefore are raising a double-standard, and he bases this argument off of the lack of evidence [supposedly] towards abiogenesis.

[downbeatplumb]

The argument that inorganic matter became life is that it did. I am living breathing proof of that. Each atom in my body could be a rock or gas or a sword or some other such thing. they just happen to be part of me at the moment.

[Colanth]

I thought Sutherland's group put an end to that question. (Evidently proof isn't enough evidence for fundies.) They didn't show how abiogenesis did occur, but they showed one way that it could have occurred. And if it could have, the claim that it couldn't have is just another gap that Gawd doesn't live in. "Evolution is just a theory" is good science compared to "abiogenesis can't happen".