Piltdown man was an act of fraud. What is this other rhetorical nonsense? The archeological remains called "Lucy" are entirely valid, although some original ideas about her being a direct ancestor may have changed. At the time, the discovery filled in a big gap in knowledge that has been refined, not dismissed.<quoted text>
The rocks that I stacked up when I was a kid, are still rocks. The caterpillars I caught never turned into a fish or a snake, but miraculously stayed moths or butterflies. Tadpoles didn't turn into Rihanna or earthworms, but miraculously remained frogs or toads. Most " irrefutable" evidence was fraudulent like the evolving moths, or pilt- down man or Lucy. And the the famous lightning in a mudhole proclamation forming amino acids. Do me a favor, and take apart your car piece by piece and scatter all over your back yard. After this, lets wager in 10 years, that those car pieces will evolve back into your Buick ready and running. And you think we believe in MAGIC ?
As far as abiogenesis is concerned, your analogies and stubborn refusal to accept the enormous time involved aren't worth refuting. You just picked a creation myth that suits your agenda, and you've put no effort at all into finding out and defending the truth for yourself. Just a pack animal, trying to move up in the pecking order it seems.