[LiteKeeper]

Arguments from silence are no arguments. And, evolutionists do make all kinds of claims about the origin of life. But the fact remains, abiogensis ( life from non-life) has been demonstrated as impossible. So, biogenesis (life from life) is the only alternative. And the question of the day is, where did the life come from that gave rise to the "protocell" of first life. If the answer is a Creator, evolution is on unstable ground. If the answer is not a Creator (regardless of what or whom that Creator might be), you now have to explain a lot of things. It does no good to tell us that life today came from life yesterday, by way of chance mutations, if you can't explain where the original life came from.

[gdani]

Your post #211 - "I am also aware of the fact that evolutionists refuse to discuss origins"

Your post #218 - "And, evolutionists do make all kinds of claims about the origin of life"

Which is it?

(As if it matters. Evolution - as explained to you about 100 times - is not concerned with the ultimate origins of life).

[Condorman]

But the fact remains, abiogensis (life from non-life) has been demonstrated as impossible.

Wrong. There are insufficient resources to eliminate all circumstances and conditions under which abiogenisis might occur. Abiogenisis has been demonstrated as impossible only under those circumstances that were tested and subsequently eliminated. I refer you to the null hypothesis: We assume abiogensis is false and attempt to demonstrate otherwise.