This is the problem with accepting Neo-Darwinian evolution and the proposed abiogenesis. Why should we treat the theory as fact given the many unknowns? Why should we accept that some unknown mechanisms enabled life to start and develop? Where are the clear steps showing the detailed transitions verifying macro-evolution (those cited already are a joke)? Already I have shown how coupled systems present problems for evolution. Why should we accept on faith that few mutations will result in added function? Complex-coupled systems would effectively shut down evolution.
Also, thermodynamics says that you can't get something for nothing. Things tend to wear out and corrode. Things tend to go from the ordered to the disordered. If evolution is true, one must explain the details of the mechanisms required for evolution. Thermodynamic mechanisms are detailed and require precision. You can't take a bunch of auto parts and throw them in a pile and expect a working machine to result. A thermodynamic mechanism must constrain energy in detailed and precise ways allowing specified processes.
When one looks at the evolutionary crap shoot game, there are problems with this supposed mechanism. The detailed processes are not specified. You are left with a random game of mutations which is at the heart of the thermodynamic problem (mutations are random and you need multiple specified mutations for evolution) . As we see in nature, random and semi-random applications of energy tend to follow the second law. Things will go from order to disorder. We should not expect the Neo-Darwinian mechanism to produce anything. The burden of proof is on Evolutionists to show that the Neo-Darwinian mechanism is actually a thermodynamic mechanism able to build amazingly complex machines. So far, they have not done this. Should we just accept the evolutionary dogma on faith because a bunch of scientists tell us to. This is the antithesis to the scientific process!
The same charge may be leveled against Creationists but there is scientific evidence supporting the accuracy of the Bible. Also, it represents the oral traditions that were passed down through history. The Bible has been used as the "manual" in several archaeological digs. Specifically, they used it to find the walls of the cities. I could write volumes on the cases where it was shown to match history. Also, many of the people and civilizations described in the Bible have been verified through archeology. Also, the story of the flood has been told, not only in the Bible, but in oral traditions of many cultures.
It does not hurt science to start with the assumptions of Creationism and see if better answers may be found. Science is also not hurt by examining the evidence from an ID perspective.
Ahem, tornado in a junkyard again.
I really don't have the time nor the inclination to deal with that this morning, but maybe someone else will take on the, uhm.... Challenge....
But you have just placed yourself in the "does not understand evolution" category, just letting you know that up front, and the "reading too many creationist websites" category as well.
Abiogenesis is not accepted as a "fact" nor is there any dominant detailed theory of how it might have happened. Obviously a lot of biologists privately assume it happened, but scientists are careful in professional publications to distinguish between theory and speculation.
Natural selection is the mechanism that accounts of life not winding down. You obviously shield yourself from unwelcome ideas.