But in fairness you have to admit that no one has ever observed life emerging from its absence. Evolutionists go out of their way to deny that that issue is relevant to evolutionary theory at all. They avoid a major problem in doing so.
And just what is this "major problem" that biologists are avoiding? And if they stopped avoiding it, what would be better because this "major problem" was no longer around? If biologists devoted all their time and resources to this "problem," and solved it, what then? (Aside from the obvious consequences of halting all medical, agricultural, and pharmaceutical research while the "major problem" was being worked on -- which is research that only biologists do, because creationists never do anything with their "science" except to sell tapes and comic books.) The creationists would look at the solution to the "problem" and do nothing but squawk that the artifical creation of life "proves" intelligent design. I've never yet seen a creationist ask a question that -- when answered -- made any difference in his committment to creationism.