1. A natural origin of life is unknown at this point, but there are a number of hypotheses that have been formulated and await full testing. The primordial soup is a metaphor. You need to catch up to the times and stop living in the 19th Century."Substantiated evidence" for me would of necessity have proven observational facts in laboratory experiments that...
1) The 'primordial soup' needed for life to begin had no recipe or chef. (just accidental)
2) That life could pop into existence as the result of undirected chance. (accidental)
3) That this life as a simple cell, came fully equipped with the right mechanisms to (accidentally) become all the forms of life that we see on earth. (past and present)
If you can supply that, I will listen to anything you can substantiate. The mere fact that so many evolutionists so quickly divorce themselves from any mention of abiogenesis is comical to say the least.....
If you can't figure out how life began...what is the point of arguing about how it changed? Adaptation is not the issue.....but macro-evolution uses adaptation to take their theory right out of the ballpark.....none of it can be substantiated.....it is assumed. Assumptions are guesses. Guesses are not facts.
If I am going to exchange one 'belief system' for another, then you better have more evidence for macro-evolution than I have evidence for the obvious intelligence that is so clearly demonstrated in creation.
If there is no foundational support for its first premise, then the whole theory has nothing to stand on...do you understand this? No building, no matter how beautiful you make it or decorate it...if its foundations are weak (or in this case non existent) then I am not going to swap my house for yours...OK?
We do not know of any processes that are not natural. So seeking a natural origin for life is logical and follows the evidence. You certainly have never presented any evidence that there is other than natural processes to be examined, evaluated and reported.
2. Un-directed and accidental are not equivalent. No matter how hard you click your ruby slippers together. Un-directed is also false claim. Natural processes are under the constraint and direction of natural laws. What is known is that there is no evidence of a director or of any actions that can be attributed to a director. A fact you desperately want to cover up and run from.
3. Forgive my raucous laughter again. You are very confused dear. There is no one claiming that abiogenesis resulted in fully formed and pre-programmed cells bursting into existence out of nowhere and for no reason. What you are describing is intelligent designs view of how life came to exist. Isn't that funny? I think it is hilarious.
4. I love your question. It is so off point and meaningless in its asking. Why bother to learn English if you do not know how the language formed? Why bother to learn about anything if you do not know how it came about is what you are asking. It is so ridiculous I cannot imagine a person asking such a question in any seriousness.
You have nothing to stand on, yet here you are and on numerous other threads like this repeating the same emotional, flawed and fallacious declarations that you always do.
I see no need for the abrasive, condescending and dismissive approach you use, but that is what we are all faced with when discussing anything with you.
