To the macroevolutionist, this theory of creation, which necessitates a god of some sort, is nonsense. However, the macroevolutionists realize that their explanation of how life arrived in the first place is also nonsense, and it too violates known natural laws. Macroevolutionists are not comfortable with any acknowledgement of the supernatural and this is why those who support macroevolution must avoid beginning at the beginning, knowing that life somehow springing from non-life through purely natural means is an absolute absurdity, and thereby choose instead to acknowledge that their theory does not deal with how life appeared, but only what happened afterward.
Why should the Evolutionists care how life got started? That is the realm of chemistry, not biology. Surely by now you know that Evolution and Abiogenesis are two completely different subjects.
Macroevolution does not begin early enough for me and can not offer that to me, and that is just another reason why I am convinced macroevolution is nothing more than a myth that is as ancient as is man himself.
Evolution cannot take place without life. Why are you trying to combine Evolution with Abiogenesis when they are when they are clearly two separate things?
Also, how many people that you quoted work in fields that are related evolution or even Biology?
™ Version 4.2