Replies

PeterPrinciple: "The stated theory of abiogenesis
If you are honest and read it slowly you will admit it is the same as spontaneous generation."

No, if you are honest and read slowly, you'll soon learn they are opposites. "Spontaneous generation" referred to suggestions that life could spontaneously pop into existence out of nothing, without descent from similar organisms.

By contrast, abiogenisis requires unbroken descent with modifications from similar organic compounds.

PeterPrinciple: "And yes the historical result of into the investigation into spontanatious generation is life come from life.
But you want to hide in your big words and little words."

No, no hiding here, behind words big or little, or behind anything else.
"Spontaneous generation" requires life to arise quickly out of nothing, without descent from similar organisms.
By contrast, abiogenesis took billions of years (hence not spontaneous) and required an unbroken chain of descents with modifications from similar forms.

PeterPrinciple: "Let's say it in simple words then: LIFE COMES FROM LIFE.
Do we agree or not?"

Everything depends on your definition of "Life".
Simple organic chemistry we agree is "not life", whereas we might agree that relatively simple bacteria are living.
But what about complex molecules like viruses or the prions which cause "mad cow" disease?
Are they "life' or "not life"?

At some point between "life" and "not life" we draw an arbitrary line saying "this is but that's not life".
But regardless of where we draw the line, the same evolutionary-type processes were at work both before and afterwards.
So nothing ever "spontaneous" about abiogenisis.

So nothing ever “spontaneous” about abiogenesis.

Again, the chemical reaction you seek either exits or doesn’t exist. There is no in between. Now the potential may exist, but it takes some sort of energy or organization to make it happen. Chemicals reactions by nature are oxidation, a lower energy state, that is the chemical reaction “goal” UNLESS energy or organization (one and the same) are introduced.

Time and randomness have neither. For the love of logic and science, take time and randomness out of your equation and propose something that makes sense.

Now instead of looking at a simple chemical reaction that you think you understand, put that in the complexity of system after system and the amount of energy and organization required.

And a further thought regarding randomness. Randomness is anti science. It means you can’t replicate anything to get to the truth. Everything is random, every time you add two chemicals together you get a different reaction. Do you believe that? Or do you believe there is a design that you get the same response so you can get closer to the truth.

NOW THE PROPER QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE ENERGY AND ORGANIZATION THAT BROUGHT ABOUT THIS REACTION and it sure as hell is not time and randomness. (pardon my French)

Science with out philosophy and logic is derelict. Your abiogenesis by definition is the same as spontaneous generation and when taken IN ISOLATION sounds good to the ears, but when placed in the realm of known scientific truth it FAILS.