[Dataman]

No, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis because evolution deals with EXISTING life forms.

Psst! Dimensio! You've had this explained to you before. Do you not get it or are you just refusing to admit defeat?

Here's how it works: Your brand of evo assumes entirely natural processes in its explanation of today's life forms. That assumption is called naturalism, also known as philosophical materialism. It just so happens that no matter what you call the philosophy, it holds to only the existence of matter and its motion. Therefore denied is the existence of a Creator. If there is no Creator, there are no miracles and life self-created.

Since self-creation violates the law of noncontradiction AND the law of biogenesis, it constitutes a miracle by definition.

Therefore abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked.

BTW, you've been asked this before and I don't recall you ever answering: Why do biology texts deal with the "primeval soup" and the spontaneous generation of life if it has nothing to do with evolution?

[Dimensio]

Here's how it works: Your brand of evo assumes entirely natural processes in its explanation of today's life forms.

What is "my brand of evo", or are you just making this up because you realise that you don't have any facts to support the lie that evolution depends on abiogenesis? Evolution deals with existing life forms. Yes, its explanations are purely naturalistic, but that only applies within the scope of the theory. The ultimate origins of life are NOT within the scope of evolutionary theory. Repeating this lie will not make it true, it only makes you a liar.

It just so happens that no matter what you call the philosophy, it holds to only the existence of matter and its motion.

When I speak of evolution, I speak of scientific theories, not of philosophies. Science can address nothing outside of natural phenomenon. That does not mean that it says that supernatural elements don't exist, but science cannot study them because they are outside of the realm of science. You are just making up my position, but you're getting it completely wrong. Tell me, do you realise that you're telling a lie when you claim that evolution is a philosophy or have you been repeating that canard so often that you've come to believe it?

Why do biology texts deal with the "primeval soup" and the spontaneous generation of life if it has nothing to do with evolution?

It might have something to do with the fact that evolution is not all that there is to biology.