“[a good] theory is required to answer such questions, otherwise it is a junk theory.
Says who? The theory of evolution doesn’t depend on where the bugs came from, any more than the theory of gravity depends on where matter came from.”
since you don’t seem to know what sophistry means, I shall point it out clearly in your argument here.
You try to equate evolution’s requirement for a theory of “WHERE THE MICROBES CAME FROM” for some requirement for Newtonian gravity to explain where matter came from. To the casual observer it seems like an equation, because you have equated two things. This is a classic sophistric argument.
evolution DEPENDS on microbes, tiny little critters, as the base of its theory. without explaining where the microbes came from, it makes no sense. Gravity does not DEPEND on knowing where the matter came from. We can detect the force, and we have other definitions of matter, such as inertia. It fits perfectly into the surrounding science and theory hand in glove.
evolution on the other hand, dangles, SEPERATE FROM ALL GOOD & NORMAL & PROPER SCIENCE, with no base, and no purpose, other than to provide a religious context for those who don’t want to believe in God.
You just contradicted yourself. We do not know how life formed. But there is a very clear geological record of a progression from primitive, simple life to more complex life.
You keep asserting things and demanding that we accept them, apparently just on your say-so. You seem to like coming up with labels for styles of argument; perhaps you can tell us what the word for that one is.
Evolution depends on microbes (or whatever form of self-replicating life came first) already being here, just as gravity depends on matter already being here. As a description of how life behaves, though, it doesn't matter how that life got here, just as it doesn't matter to gravity how matter got here.
I'll borrow a framework that's been used here before: consider three possible origins of life--1, God seeded the first microbes; 2, aliens seeded the first microbes; 3, the first microbes developed chemically from nonliving substances. I'm saying that for the theory of evolution, as a description of what happened after that event, it doesn't matter which of those 3 is correct. You must think it does, or you wouldn't be insisting that evolution pick one. So what difference do you think it makes to evolution as a scientific theory, separate from any social or moral implications which one it is?