It was all about how abiogenesis could be started according to the laws of physics and maintained after it started. Construction in this universe is by that polarity of charges. Opposites attract, like repels. This causes motion and existence. Just point out a random pattern that could happen and then replicate itself in the swirl of those energies.<quoted text>
Is all of this part of a larger argument, perhaps one against the validity of one of the sciences, or an argument against the possibility of abiogenesis. I ask because I need to know where we're headed in order to know what points are worth rebutting.
With Christians - and I realize that you have a different god than they - I prefer not to argue science, since all that they can hope to do there is to establish the need for an intelligent designer, but not theirs. I'll generally stipulate to all of their antiscience just to get to the part where they begin to argue that their god was the designer, an easier and shorter rebuttal.
Besides, it's nearly impossible to discuss science with somebody who only knows what Christian apologists have taught him about it.
But in your case, I'm expecting a deluge of items that I would disagree with and an amorphous, featureless god that cannot be refuted, and want a clearer picture of where you're headed in order to choose my battles more wisely.
But you won't.
IANS, you have a basic problem with a truly "scientific" approach to life. You are more concerned with what you think it is or should be than what it is.
Your ego clouds your judgement. But you know that.