Bombardier Beetle 2

No primordial soup,no amph-rept-birds,etc. If nature didn't do it, then the extension of what we see=observable-life comes from life=intelligence-wins by default.

Evolution doesn't account for the origin of life, it accounts for the diversity of life. In addition to your red herring you're now presenting false dichotomy and god of the gaps fallacies (I saw that coming a million miles away.) Just because we don't know how life originated, doesn't mean "god did it." It merely means we don't know yet.

Exactly, or perhaps a crazy theory I like, is infact true and civilisations have been visited by extraterrestrials, explaining the mysteries of the pyramids regarding the alignment to stars etc, and perhaps the bible is true, however "Jesus" is infact an alien being with superior technologies, therefore explaining the so called "Miracles". The bottem line is with the preciseness of existance, anything, ANYTHING is possible.

failogic

Is abiogenesis a Law,Theory, a hypothesis, or simply an "idea?" Show me evidence, a law, a model which supports this "idea". Abiogenesis is a simply an "idea". Yes or No? If not, show me the evidence, law,or the mechanism which supports it.

Show me a mechanism which supports abiogenesis, that uses the open system, yet, produces LIFE from NON-LIFE. The evidence must NOT be a repetive non-life pattern(rock,snowflake, etc.=the,the,the,-small pattern or THE,THE,THE,THE,THE,=large pattern). Show me a mechanism which shows the "HOW" it works. There is absolutely NO evidence for abiogenesis. Show non-life with a code,a message language,decoder mechanism, informational map with directions. Non-life=Natural Life=Mind

Abiogenesis is a red herring, Evolution does not claim to explain it.

That's because it's just an "idea". Unless you can prove that it's a,law, theory, or hypothesis. If there is no evidence for abiogenesis, then what would you classify it as? Philocophical?

A red herring is a logical fallacy that is introduced by presenting an irrelevant argument to the given topic. In this case abiogensis is irrelevant to the discussion evolution. As such the lack of evidence in abiogenesis (and no scientist in their right mind would deny there is currently a lack of evidence for abiogenesis) in no way detracts from the Theory of Evolution.

If you do not have NON-life to life, then that automatically defaults the observable=life to life evidence. If life came from life, then it's easy to declare intelligence=life=present observable evidence. Because there is no other rational argument, therefore, it raises the white flag of admission that natural process(non-life)cannot account for life since there is no evidence for it.