Converting raw energy into biological energy

Your dictionary? (I see it's the merriam webster)And what is the scientific definition? YOu know, the one that would actually be valid, as this is discussing the science of abiogenesis?Also, I fail to see how this generic definition writes out God or the ID. That would be because . . .wait for it . . .it doesn't!Look, how do you tell if God did it, or if an ID did it, or if none of the above did it?This is blindingly simple logic, rob.
Once no life.
Now life.
Life came from no life. Why?
What else could it be?Mind actually answering the question without dodging?

How would you determine he created them "whole"? What is "whole"?
How do you determine that he stepped in? What are his marks? How are they identifiable from the chemical and physical laws we know?You're offering very poor arguments. No substance, no logic, and all assertion.And how did evolution enter the argument? This is supposed to be about creating life, right? Not about life evolving, right? Can't you stay on topic in your own thread?

Is god alive?
How do you determine god's existence?
If you don't know, isn't it all metaphysical bullshit?Why would life come from god? Why couldn't he make it with the materials around him (see: genesis, the creation of adam)?
If you don't know, isn't it all metaphysical bullshit?After all, all you're doing is suggesting possibilities for how it happened, right? So you don't absolutely know, do you?
Why are your possibilies valid and our possibilities not? After all, they are both possibilities for how it happened, right? So how come your's is better? Because it's in a millennia old book that your religion is based on? Or do you actually have evidence (aside from an unconfirmed source) for god zap-poofing life into existence?Since you don't know, it's hopelessly metaphysical, right?
And since you used that argument to say that our possibilities are invalid, it makes your possibilities invalid.Of course, that's not what you meant to have happen, eh?

evolution is shorthand for biological evolution, you know? You have got to say beforehand that you mean a specific type of evolution (cause you know, there's also cosmological evolution, but that's not what you meant, right?). Then use chemical evolution, or use abiogenesis.If you use both, it suggests that evolution is not abiogenesis, because evolution generally means biological evolution.The rest of your post is an assertion. Mind giving us any links for research that shows how DNA is analogous to other systems shown to arise from intelligence?
How about for the high information content?
How about for the extreme complexity?
And why must all physical laws only repeat simple patterns? Since when was DNA a physical law (which is the implication in your writing).And if you can determine that DNA can come about through natural means, how do you tell those natural means apart from how god (or ID) did it? I'd like to see some research cited.You know, only what you've demanded, and we've given, on the whole thread.

Energy is matter?
That's news. Source? Evidence? Sources? You know, that which you're always demanding from us?Remember how I said that you couldn't use an uncomfirmed book? Because on matters of god, I'm not aware of any outside confirmation of what he's like or what he is.And you didn't answer how one could tell god's methods apart from natural methods (since you are claiming that natural methods can't do it and god did, right?)
YOu also dodged asnwering why he couldn't use the materials around him. He can do anything, right? So why would he use one method over another? How could you tell what methods he used?ANd if you can't know, isn't it hopelessly metaphysical? YOu know, what you claimed the studies on abiogenesis to be?Are you appreciating your own argument turned against you?