[Rytwyng]

Your blanket assertion does not apply to any accepter of evolution whom I have met, and I've met quite a few

And I went to school with quite a few. There was some diversity of opinion, but in general the evolutionists believed in random origin from the start. (ALL the textbooks say that, by the way.) But, a few did believe that the first cell could have been created or seeded here and all later life evolved from that.

The essential problem with the "created first cell" idea, is that the same critiques that apply to the "random" origin of the first cell, also apply to later transformations. So if one accepts intelligent-design for the first cell, he/she has implicitly (albeit perhaps unknowingly) conceded the validity of the arguments for intelligent design all through.

A "seeded" first cell is an even tougher problem -- who planted the seed, and who created him/her/it/them? In short, the "seed" theory merely relocates the origin-of-life problem, it doesn't solve it.

[Dimensio]

My point was that evolution does not deal with life origins because life origins are outside of the realm of evolution. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong, they are either lying or misinformed. Evolution requires existing life forms to work, it has no relevance if there aren't life forms already there.

It's kind of like gravity. Gravity requires objects that have mass, however gravitational theory (yes, gravity is "just a theory") makes no statements regarding the ultimate origins of objects with mass.

[balrog666]

(ALL the textbooks say that, by the way.)

What, what what?

Our textbooks are simplifying current, modern, cutting edge, scientific theory for the sake of mere schoolchildren???

No, please, say it isn't so!!!