Hello CID,
I feel I need to clarify a few things here. Firstly, evolution does not hinge on the theory of abiogenesis. Evolution describes what happened to life after it had begun. There is much less evidence for abiogenesis, but there is still a good deal -- enough to make it an acceptable idea.
Have you read RAZD's posts here? He said above,
it has always been a question of chemicals coming together and mixing - something rocks are incapable of but which soups do nicely.
We have also found that amino acids - those molecules that all proteins and other elements of life are made from - occur in space and frequently are carried to earth. That means we are really starting with chicken soup (complete with noodles).
The other end of the abiogenesis question is when you get a replicating system, one subject to copy error and selection, and thus evolution for better, improved and more stable replication systems. These do not need to be cellular life.
And we know of several replicating molecules.
Now you can either update you knowledge of reality or you can update your denial of reality, but just remember that denial of evidence is not faith.
This is not akin to spontaneous generation, which is a past idea -- now universally discredited -- that organisms appear out of nowhere. You will not find any serious scientists who claim this to be the case.
You said:
The best scientific knowledge available indicates that life doesn't come from non-life. There's nigh on unanimity on this point.
On the contrary, you will find many people, including the majority of scientists, who take the theory of abiogenesis very seriously. We seem to keep discovering more steps between A and B, A being organic chemicals and B being self-replicating molecules. The gap between both continues to narrow. If you care to keep abreast of the latest news in this area you will discover this yourself.
I'm not saying I personally believe that abiogenesis is the perfect description of how life arose. I find creationism far more implausible however. No one here has so far been able to point me to any actual evidence for it.
BTW can I also ask you to refrain from using terms such as "evolutionism," which implies that evolution is a faith or religion. It is a way of describing how the world works. You can be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and still accept evolution as a working model. It boils down to there being truckloads more evidence for evolution than there is for a Biblical creation and a young earth.
