Transition from chemistry to biology

Where, precisely, is this boundary? You seem to understand the difference between living and nonliving matter as a discrete barrier that lends itself to such binary classifications.

Please provide your dewfinition of "life." I've never seen one that so clearly classified matter as "living" or "nonliving" that we could legitimately say that anything could possibly be "nonliving" and then "the next moment" be "iving."

I will pay you one bajillion internets to do exactly that. Every time you and Son Goku post regarding physics, I learn a lot more.

Argument from personal incredulity. Simply because you cannot see how it may be possible does not make it impossible.

To disprove abiogenesis as a possibility, you must provide a mechanism that prevents nonliving chemicals from arranging themselves into a living thing, or you must explore every single possible chemical pathway and eliminate all of them as routes to life.

You have done neither. Abiogenesis remains an unproven possibility, with ongoing research that has so far yielded promising results.

Human beings also have access to medical care in areas where the life expectancy averages to 70+ years. Even in first-world nations with excellent healthcare, animals don't receive nearly the care humans do. And what of the humans who live to over 120 years, nearly twice the average life expectancy?

It sounds like you're pulling nonsense from thin air, Peg.

Pasteur did not prove that life cannot arise from nonliving matter. He simply showed that modern living things do not suddenly appear out of nowhere. Abiogenesis is in agreement - we do not expect to see maggots or bacteria form spontaneously from nonliving matter. We do predict that naturally occurring compounds can spontaneously self-assemble into self-replicating molecules and eventually form something we would identify as life.

There's a rather large difference between the two.

First off, an appeal to autority is a logical fallacy. Just because Pasteur may have said something doesnt make it true. Quotes mean nothing. Evidence means everything. Pasteur produced no mechanism that prevents nonliving matter from forming life. None of his observations did anything of the sort.

Second, the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is significant. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that nonliving matter may, through natural chemical reactions, spontaneously result in life. Spontaneous generation is the hypothesis that currently extant life forms spontaneously form from nonliving matter - that is, maggots form from dead meat, etc.

And you'd be wrong. Fortunately, you are not responsible for defining terms.

As I said, spontaneous generation is the hypothesis that currently existing life forms spontaneously form from nonliving matter, such as maggots spontaneously forming from dead meat instead of hatching from eggs laid by a parent fly.

Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that nonliving matter can, through natural chemical reactions, arrange itself into life. Not fully-formed extant life forms, but primitive, barely-meets-the-definition life.

If you can't tell the difference between those two, I can't help you.

Oddly enough, greater than 99% of all biologists hold the Theory of Evolution to be an incredibly accurate model of the observed mechanism of change over generations in populations of living things, as well as an accurate explanation for the diversity of life observed on Earth.

That's quite a conspiracy theory you have there.

Now, if you have evidence that the Theory of Evolution is a gigantic fraud, please feel free to illuminate us. If you have no such evidence, I'll be forced to conclude that you don't know what you're talking about, and are simply yet another Creationist arguing from a position of complete ignorance in support of dogmatic belief.