I made simple contradiction because you didn't offer any support for your original assertion. I'm not sure why "The entire 'theory' is predicated on the idea that there is no God" is any less of a troll than "no it's not." But that's not important. Let's look at the assertions I contradicted:
The Theory of Evolution depends upon life spontaneously appearing on Earth.
To crib from someone else who used to post around these parts: there are several ideas about how the life might have arisen on Earth, including direct creation, "seeding" from comets, "seeding" from Mars, "seeding" by aliens, unguided chemical reactions, and chemical reactions guided by a Designer. The theory of evolution doesn't care which one is accurate. Evolution starts when there are organisms capable of reproducing--not before. The relative weaknesses of the hypotheses about the origin of life do not weaken the theory of evolution, any more than uncertainty about the causes of the Big Bang weaken theories of star formation.
The entire “theory” is predicated on the idea that there is no God...
To which I said "No it's not"...
So, do you mean that evolutionists take into account the existence of God, or of a designer, when they are working out the possible mechanisms of cell-diversity on Earth? Or, do they only approach the study of these things from the stand point that only naturalistic explanations are acceptable?
Scientists look for naturalistic explanations of everything they investigate, from the causes of disease to the reasons for earthquakes to celestial mechanics to the diversity of life forms (and they've had remarkable success finding them). I'm not sure what you mean by "take into account the existence of God"--do you mean assume that the explanation for those things must involve direct action by God? No, they don't do that. But that doesn't mean that, individually or collectively, they rule out God's existence..
“I made simple contradiction because you didn’t offer any support for your original assertion.”
Why should I bother to support something that is self-evident? No matter how much you twist or turn, the fact remains that “science,” falsely so called, is predicated on a denial of the existence of God. They operate only on what they claim can be observed, though, certainly, they promote all sorts of things which have never been observed. When you make the claim that the evolutionists “don’t care” about the origins of cell life, you do spread a falsehood, since, obviously, there is no hypothesis for origins amongst actual evolutionary scientists that consist of the supernatural.
As you said, they’re more willing to believe in aliens, comets, or whatnot, to explain it, rather than to confess the supernatural. They must appeal to these ridiculous things because these wretches are at least somewhat aware with how complex even the “simplest” cell is.
“To crib from someone else who used to post around these parts: there are several ideas about how the life might have arisen on Earth, including direct creation, “
What Evolutionary scientist is proposing direct creation? What scientific journal was it published it? Can you tell me?
Don’t mess with me with these absurd comments of yours. I don’t care if you, in your own particular theology (or lack thereof) imagine that God created life on Earth, but then let evolution take over. You’re not a scientist. You’re not writing research papers. You’re not in the universities teaching. You’re not putting forward papers detailing how God would have created the first living cell. Instead, evolutionary scientists are putting forward papers on how life could have started on its own through random processes, and it is THIS explanation which has the backing of academia.
You seriously need to consider changing your screen name.