Abiogenesis is impossible

[Brakeman]

Do you know what the word "theorems", ergo theories mean? They are ideas that explain evidence, not the evidence itself. Give us the evidence.

well, your defination seems to be saying that the evidence is there. what do others think about his defination of 'theorem' in this context?
these theorems are extention of the theory of Rel.. so can't get any more scientific then that.
the U. is an effect. 'nothing' isn't going to be the cause. the cause is always greater than the effect. krauss in his 'nothing' book states - cannot rule out a deistic view of nature.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, but I'm guessing that you mean that there is no evidence to base the theory of relativity on? Well there is, and do you know what observed phenomena inspired the mathematical model for the theory that you say "breaks down" seconds after the "big bang"? ( I think you are referring to the math model fault at the tiniest fraction of a second before the singularity going back in time, not forward as you stated.)
It sounds to me that you've read a couple of articles about the big bang and are desperately trying to find a crack to stuff your god in.

You said:

We now have proof, that the cause-effect phenomena is limited to a first order infinity.

I asked you for that "proof."

As for snowtracks,
And when you're called on having a god for which you are unwilling to calculate the odds, you recourse to calling god "an effect." Congrats, that's a completely content free explanation. What do you mean, he's an effect? And where is your evidence that this is so?

.. God doesn't require a 'beginning' when view in the proper timeline (not the U.) frame of reference nor be 'caused'.

Where is your "proof" or evidence for this statement? We have no evidence for god and god is not mentioned in any of the evidence or mathematical models we have for relativity or the "big bang."