Oh come now, characterizing abiogenesis as "life arose from a muddy soup of nothing" is a little silly, isn't it? Surely an intelligent person wouldn't have to stoop to that kind of obvious strawmannery. Let's hear your (implied) objections intelligently stated.<quoted text>
WOW!! "For the previous 8 billion or so it was doing the same thing it's doing now"? That's brilliant! Just brilliant!!
A thread about biological evolution where also the evolutionists say that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, the earth is 4.7 billion years old, life arose from a muddy soup of nothing, and that is where life came from thus we have been evolving since. So it is relevant to evolution because according to most here that is when things started that led up to evolution.
It's also completely reasonable to separate a discussion of evolution from theoretical physics. Of course it is. The point you make is like arguing that you have to perfectly understand neolithic history in order to explain the Second Sino-Japanese War. It's not that understanding one or the other is *bad*, it's just a bit silly to insist upon the one to understand the other...