[GSHastings]

Evolution has nothing to do with how the first life forms came into being. That you would equate such with evolution merely demonstrates your complete ignorance of the subject.

No it doesn't. If evolution is true, then if you rewind the sequences of evolution, ultimately must arrive at the beginning. And that reverse flow of sequences would transend right past any arbitrary point you might want to conveniently define as "life", and continue right on to some point that everyone would agree to be non-living.

Sorry, no free ride.

[Dimensio]

If evolution is true, then if you rewind the sequences of evolution, ultimately must arrive at the beginning. And that reverse flow of sequences would transend right past any arbitrary point you might want to conveniently define as "life", and continue right on to some point that everyone would agree to be non-living.

If you run the process of evolution back to the "beginning" to the point of the first life forms, then you would be addressing how those life forms came into being, but once you did that you would not be addressing evolution anymore. If you're dealing with some process that creates imperfect self-replicators rather than the imperfect self-replicators themselves then you are not dealing with evolution. Evolution deals with existing life forms. A process that causes life to exist where it did not before involves, at one stage, a system with no life forms. As such, that process cannot be evolution. Once again, it does not matter how the first life forms came into being, they could have been a result of electricity in amino acids, aliens from another dimension, time-travelling humans who realised that humanity was responsible for its own existence or a divine agent zap-poofing it into existence -- EVOLUTION DOES NOT DEPEND UPON HOW LIFE ORIGINATED ON THIS PLANET