Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Aractus]

ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY is chained to abiogenesis theory (the belief that life resulted from non-life spontaneously). Evolution and abiogenesis are two different theories, but because pro-evolutionists are notoriously atheists and dismiss an intelligent Designer/God from the equation, abiogenesis is what they are stuck with. When asked how life came from non-life by itself, they have no credible answer. So to avoid the problem of the long debunked theory of abiogenesis, some have jumped onto the creation bandwagon and claim they are theists who believe in evolution theory. In fact some claim they are Christians.

You are incorrect in principle and in practicality. Practicality would presume that probability plays a role in creating organic life from non-organic life, this is as absurd as presuming that probability plays a role in the formation of crystals. Probability plays no role, it's just physics, entropy, and the ultimate inevitability of the physical processes. In principle we know how abiogenesis works but we don't know why. In other words, we don't know what set of circumstances activates it nor how to reproduce them at present.

And in principle they are not linked any more than Quantum Mechanics is "linked" to General Relativity and so their apparent incompatibility with each other shouldn't mean that one or both are insufficient theories (until a more complete one comes to erase one or the other).

According to macroevolution theory, after the first living organism developed from nonliving matter in the ocean and formed into a "primordial soup," it resulted in a "common ancestor" from which came all the different forms of life that have ever existed on planet earth, including humans.

Wrong. Probability does not play a role. In the early stages of the earth the conditions were right for organic matter to be formed, billions upon billions of times. This early organic matter linked and unlinked with other organic matter until such a time as it was possible to reproduce or replicate, and there you have the basic theory of how life is formed from non-living matter. It has nothing to with having one single common ancestor - unless you're talking about a bottleneck when the self-replicating begins. But as we can discount probability from that process, it is more than likely that that too happened any number of times before a meaningful genetic "bottleneck" occurs.

All of this is believed to have been accomplished by itself (abiogenesis), without input from a supernatural God aka Jehovah who intervened and guided the outcome. Non-living matter simply decided one day to come to life--by itself--and bring forth intelligent life by unintelligent means. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica (1978), page 1018)

Again you are wrong. Not by itself. A Crystal doesn't decide what shape it's going to be, nor when to begin forming. And we actually can not make the link between its shape and the underlying physics that results in it, such a link is obviously implied to be there since there is remarkable consistency (salt crystals being cubular, for instance). If we have this level of difficulty making a link to something physical which we have a great variety of which to see and study, imagine the difficulty with something that we haven't seen and do not have the diversity we have with crystals!

They carefully avoid the fact that science is unable to present a credible alternative for how life came from non-life by itself (abiogenesis).

I have to call you on this one.

Since when does science present credible explanations or answers to specific questions/criteria??