No, such reactions can exist in one place under one set of conditions, but not in other places having different conditions.
So your problem with that is what, exactly?
PeterPrinciple: "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."
So now you fantasize I need a basic chemistry lesson, why?
PeterPrinciple: "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"
For the love of logic and science, why are you babbling incoherently?
"Time and randomness" play some role in virtually every chemical reaction.
Why even dispute that?
PeterPrinciple: "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."
So why are you now arguing that life is too complex to have arisen "spontaneously" when you are the only one on this thread to have ever claimed "spontaneous generation"?
PeterPrinciple: "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."
So it's not enough for you to babble mindlessly about "spontaneous" generation, now you wish to throw in mumbo-jumbo about "randomness"?
Why?
The simple fact is that in chemistry, as in much else, small differences in input can sometimes produce huge differences in output.
That's the role of "randomness".
PeterPrinciple: "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)"
I can easily pardon French or any other language, but I have zero tolerance for babbling nonsense, which is what you're posting.
First you set up a ridiculous straw-man and now you're flogging it to death -- why?
PeterPrinciple: "Science with out philosophy and logic is derelict."
Science is all about logic, but "philosophy" not so much.
By definition the word "science" is only concerned with the observations and explanations of the material realm.
And "derelict" or not, it's produced what we see in the modern world.
PeterPrinciple: "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."
And that is a total lie, which should shame you to tell, if you were even capable of shame, which it seems you're not.
Why?
PeterPrinciple: “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.”
I have asked what time and randomness bring into the equation. Address the issue. Counter my argument with science.
I have even tried to lead you to the answer, it is some event that brings in energy and organization. BUT NOT TIME.
TIME AND RANDOMNESS BRING NOTHING TO THE EQUATION. They distract you from true science.
At least the article brings some evidence and a good questions. But you go right to time and randomness because you don’t like the evidence.