I see you had fun, not much time so lets go point for point, first, theory of evolution. Its not fact I will argue. Lest see what consensus (mob-rule) has to offer about the origin of the first cell. "It appears that life first emerged at least 3.8 billion years ago, approximately 750 million years after Earth was formed (Figure 1.1). How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Nonetheless, several types of experiments provide important evidence bearing on some steps of the process." Matter of speculation? Not a fact? Lets go on... "It was first suggested in the 1920s that simple organic molecules could form and spontaneously polymerize into macromolecules under the conditions thought to exist in primitive Earth's atmosphere. At the time life arose, the atmosphere of Earth is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen, instead consisting principally of CO2 and N2 in addition to smaller amounts of gases such as H2, H2S, and CO. Such an atmosphere provides reducing conditions in which organic molecules, given a source of energy such as sunlight or electrical discharge, can form spontaneously. The spontaneous formation of organic molecules was first demonstrated experimentally in the 1950s, when Stanley Miller (then a graduate student) showed that the discharge of electric sparks into a mixture of H2, CH4, and NH3, in the presence of water, led to the formation of a variety of organic molecules, including several amino acids (Figure 1.2). Although Miller's experiments did not precisely reproduce the conditions of primitive Earth, they clearly demonstrated the plausibility of the spontaneous synthesis of organic molecules, providing the basic materials from which the first living organisms arose." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/ Evolutionist still on board, right? So is it that from Millers experiments we draw conclusions that it is plausible to believe that rest of the theory is right? So we got alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, and glycine to be formed, bits and pieces, from there we go to observe functional cell, thats a gap, "scientific gap", if I recall right. Why not frase it "leap of faith" instead? There is a logical gap also. All we have is speculation of early stage on RNA floating in otherwise empty cell ( with hard science we have only alanine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, and glycine and the existence of the cell unexplained) and then we leap to full operating cell. That really is a gap too big to be taken as a fact. Thats like computer with only outerior and parts of reading/writing head (early stage of RNA) floating inside it, then you are presented with fully functional selfreplicating computer, and explanation is that it just happened, we gave it electric shock, and behold, self replicating computer! No faith involved, just a fact? And which came first, DNA, the blueprint, or RNA, reader/replicator ? Chicken or the Egg? No problems in evolution theory?