Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Rampant.A.I.]

Evolution deals with the adaptation of existing life and speciation.

Abiogenesis deals with the production of life from inert matter.

1. Life is unlikely to have arisen from inert matter. It is likely to have arisen from highly reactive matter through many intermediate stages in a chemically protracted process.

2. These stages undoubtely saw multiple intermediate forms that possesses some, but not all, of the characteristic structures, processes, and functions of what we might definitely call life. This would be the gray zone in the progress of abiogenesis where things are produced that are not quite inanimate matter, but may not be quite full fledged life either.

3. What drove these intermediate form towards full fledged life is undoubtedly an evolutionary process involving natural selection.

Evolution and abiogenesis may be separate theories, but the process of abiogenesis dependents intimately upon the process of evolution process by natural selection to complete.

Abiogenesis would be impossible without the process behind evolution.

I agree with you, but this tactic of "Well I reject Abiogenesis, therefore evolution is false" drives me crazy. Abiogenesis requires evolution, evolution doesn't require that abiogenesis happened.