I'll take you on, point by point. You'll fight me in the pages of your biologoy books. But I have one point, simple to make, and I do hope that you won't be fake. Answer me this. With poignant words, not a fist.
For life to evolve here on planet earth
Would it not have to have blocks
on which to build first?
So where did these blocks come?
From the sky, or the moon
No, thats just dumb!
Or spontaneously made
in lighning
and chemical trade?
But even if acids
of the amino sort
did appear in the placid
mother earths wart,
how did it assemble
in delicate number
and since has nor tremble
or stumble?
Simply put! Where did the building blocks of life come from? The sky on a meteor? Or were Amino Acids formed in earth's early atmosphere? but even if the conditions were right, how would those amino acids form into the complex formations needed to create life? We can debate evolution, but first you must answer, where did life come from, and who is it's master?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Excellent points.
Why can't religion and science work together towards a solution? I see no reason if religion is not anthropogenic.
Simply put ... I don't know. So let's take a look at some possible theories and the evidence:
(1) Earth's atmosphere: The Miller-Urey experiments of the the 1950's showed that under reasonable assumptions for an early earth atmosphere amino acids are produced in abundance by electrical discharges. Furthermore the amino acids that are most easily produced this way are the ones most likely to be used by living things.These experiments have been criticized recently because there has been evidence that reducing agents (H2 and methane) may not have been in high enough concentrations to accomplish this. But even more recently studies have come out suggesting this criticism is not as pertinent as once thought. In other words, perhaps those reducing agents WERE in sufficient concentrations in the early earth's atmosphere after all.
(2) Deep sea vents: There is a lot of volcanic activity there and sulfur-compounds are released in abundance. Sulfur is a VERY good reducing agent and could be used to produce amino acids. Experiments have shown that amino acids are produced in abundance when that environment is mimiced in the laboratory. Again, like the Miller-Urey experiments the amino acids that are produced abiotically just happen to be the ones most used by living things. Furthermore, two of the 20 amino acids used to make proteins contain sulfur (cysteine and methionine). The criticism of this is that there is a lot of heat down there and one might expect that energy to break more molecular bonds than it makes. However, we now recognize that there are an abundance of bacteria-like organisms capable of living down there even in the most extreme heat. Since bacteria are the most simple things that are universally recognized as life, if they can live down there ... then there is no reason to assume that they could not have evolved down there. Indeed iron pyrites (present in abundance in deep sea vents) have been shown to create a microenvironment that could have stabilized bond formatino in the presence of heat that could have allowed just such a chemical evolution to occur.
(3) Meteorites: There was a meteorite that landed near the town of Murchison, Austrailia in the late 1980's. It was recovered and examined. On the inside amino acids were recovered. Like the above two scenarios above the amino acids that were recovered were the ones most likely to be used by living things. The presence of those amino acids show without a reasonable doubt that these amino acids ARE produced by abiotic means. Criticisms of this is that it is hard to see how this source could have supplied enough amino acids to the early earth. However the earth was formed by coallescence of meteorites, so who knows how much was initially seeded on the earth.
(4) A supernatural being magically whipped them up as part of a designed plan to make living things. The ONLY evidence for this seems to be personal incredulity of naturalistic explanations. There is no independent evidence with scientific support that such a being exists. There is no independent evidence that anything about this scenario has ever happened. That is, there is no evidence that there was a plan for life. There is no evidence that magic was used to make these things ... in fact, the fact that the amino acids that are most easily produced by abiotic means are the ones most likely to be used by living things argues against it.
Simply put ... I don't know? What are the theories and what is the evidence?
(1) RNA world: RNA is a molecule that is important in the biochemical pathways leading from gene to protein production: Proteins are important because they direct all biochemical reactions used by living organisms now-a-days. DNA is closely related to RNA, in fact, in living organisms RNA is modified to make DNA. RNA is capable of base pairing just as DNA can so it could have served as a reservoir of genetic information. RNA can catalyze biochemical reactions like proteins can. In fact one reaction that it is very good at catalyzing is the synthesis of RNA polymers. So RNA could have done it all. Criticism of this is that RNA is still a complex molecule so it is difficult to see how it could have arisen on its own.
(2) Cell first hypothesis: In living things chemical reactions necessary for life take place in cells which are chemicals encased in a bag of a lipid bilayer. Lipid bilayers can form spontaneously and they can serve as microenvironments that protect the chemical reactions inside it from effects of the world outside them.
(3) Metabolism first hypothesis: All that is needed for natural selection to take effect is for there to be an imperfect replicator. No one believes that the first imperfect replicator would be something that we would recognize as life today. The easiest imperfect replicator to imagine is a hypercycle, which is a chain of chemical reactions that in the end regenerates on of the compounds in the system. Such hypercycles are known to form in environments in which a lot of chemical compounds are concentrated. Over time these hypercycles could produce by-products that would alter the hypercycle and make it more complex. Eventually natural selection could lead to hypercycles that are complex enough for us to recognize as living organisms.
(4) A non-coporeal supernatural agent magically whipped everything together into a living cell as part of a designed plan for life. The ONLY evidence for this seems to be personal incredulity that the above naturalistic scenarios won't work. There is no independent scientifically acceptable evidence that such a supernatural being exists. Magic can explain anything, therefore it limits nothing and does not increase our understanding at all. There is no evidence that magic was used. There is no evidence that is designed plan for life. In fact, paleontological evidence shows that for almost 2 billion years the only life on earth was bacteria-like life. This is the simplest life that we universally recognize as living. This argues against a supernatural planning since there is no apparent reason that magically whipping up more complex living things is all that much harder than whipping up bacteria.
(1) Why do we have to debate the origin of life to debate evolution which only refers to the diversification of life after it originally formed? Even if a supernatural agent did magically whip up the first bacteria-like cell, absolutely nothing in modern evolutionary theory would have to be changed. The evidence would clearly show that all organisms are related by common descent, and that natural selection is a VERY important but not necessarily sole mechanism behind this diversification.
(2) It is my opinion that when you look at all theories fairly (and by fairly I mean not just assume that if naturalistic explanations at the moment are not capable of explaining everything then supernaturalistic ones win by default; but instead looking at how EACH theory explains the evidence on its own) that naturalistic theories for the origin of life win hands down.
(3) You are assuming things not in evidence .. Why should life have a master?
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France