What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Also, no it's not like once abiogenesis managed to happen evolution can take over from there.

...and you know this how? Stop plugging your head up with denial, and read some books by actually qualified biologists, biochemists, and physicists who know how it would have been possible. STOP insulting us with denials that anything could have happened based on what you happen to know about the modern-day biological systems, which of course did not spring up overnight! Learn what you're talking about first, before you decide what is or isn't possible!

There are a lot of molecular features that you really have to stretch the imagination to think that an accumulation of mutations led to them. And yes plenty of professionals in the field disagree with the whole hearted story of evolution.

"Whole-hearted"? Okay, you win a cookie for that! Now you're actually getting to be funny!

Sure, there are some aspects of it that are true. Darwin was onto something, but the question is whether or not it really does explain everything after abiogenesis up to now. It's not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from what we do know about molecular biology, not what we don't know.

As observed a few posts back, abiogenesis remains an untested hypothesis, unlike the process by which life evolved once it got under way on a planet where any could go because the first life forms existed without predators. Natural selection is a theory which consistently explains the proven facts, and has been observed in real time, whether or not you choose to observe them for yourself. There is no science, none whatsoever to posit "microevolution/macroevolution" - this is purely wishful masturbation, so don't even go there (if you do, I shall taunt thee again, heehhehehhe).