You're right. Life did "spring" from non-life. You've saying that to be valid,
the ToE must address that. I'm saying that's wrong. But you knew that.
You're saying... I'm saying...
Why don't we stop guessing what each other is saying and put this issue into black and white terms.
We start with the premise that this planet was originally lifeless, if you disagree, speak up now.
We proceed to speculate HOW life came to be on a lifeless planet. For Evolution, it must mean that an inanimate object evolved into a living organism.
If you disagree, please specify HOW life came to be if it didn't evolve from an inanimate object on a lifeless planet.
If you agree, then what we need is to be able to replicate in a laboratory the evolution of that first life form from an inanimate object. To date, this action has not been accomplished.
As far as I'm concerned, the Theory of Evolution needs to explain how the first form of life evolved from inanimate matter. If it can't explain that first step, then it has no scientific usefulness, and is of dubious realibility, to me.
Hopefully we're clear on where we stand after this post.
Good luck responding to the above without admitting that the Theory of Evolution has grave scientific flaws as outlined above.