Welcome to Gaia! ::

This is somewhat confused.

Firstly, you start talking about the phenominon of abiogensis, which is a very complex and progressive field of science. The old view of a 'soup' has been upgraded and updated so many times that the versions in science textbooks (which are only allowed to use accepted and confirmed science) can't keep up. You can't teach science that is at the cutting edge because kids don't know enough to understand it. Even getting someone to understand what we knew twenty years ago is hard. Filling in that last 20 years is today reserved for uni; particularly in biology, which has gone further in the last decade than it went in the first half of the 20th Century.

Secondly, you claim macroevolution is something that takes faith. I need to argue this, but first need to know what is your exact definition of macro evolution? There is no official one, and ID/Creation advocates constantly change and update it to stop counter arguments from working anymore.

For example, it was claimed that speciation was macroevolution. Then it was observed. The Creationists changed the defition to mean a change of 'kind'. That doesn't have a definition either. You ask any twenty people what 'macroevolution' or 'kind' of animal is and you get twenty different answers.

Oh, I have been debateing this point over on the Bible.org forums. Took me a few posts to get through to actual biblical scollars and Christian scientists, so this could take a while.

But the thing is that you haven't outlined you reasons, so it is a hard thing to argue.

See, I can show you how evolution, and as an extension, abiogensis and naturalistic processes from the big bang onwards lead logicaly and smoothly to life as we know it, with no needs for any leaps of faith at all.

That is the whole point of science. To reduce the amount of blind faith needed. Each leap must be based in observations and supported by the empirical world around us. Any assumption must be attacked and gaps must be filled by evidenced and supported theories, or not at all. You can explain gaps with blind assumptions or you can be totaly destroyed by Occams Razor and the worlds most basic theory.

So tell me, what in evolution takes the most faith? Attack it. That is good science.

It is hard to throw off the shackles of anthrocentricity, the view that you are the center of everything, but is something that is done progressively through your life. A baby will see themselfs as the center of the world; the most important thing in the universe. Through the terrible twos this worldview remains. It tends to be knocked out of kids soon after entering school or some form of social environment. They realise that they are not the most important person in the world. It is normaly hard to come to terms with.

However, most people still find it hard to look beyond humanity for importance. We see our human concerns as things that go beyond all else. While such things are important, much of what we stress about is purely fictional.

To keep this secular and away from any dangerous ground, lets use money as our example.

What is the worth of a dollar? It is a symbol. It represents a certain concept. In and of itself, it is nothing. However, when two people accept that it is a symbol, suddenly it becomes something you can exchange with that other person. You agree that it takes on value, and so it becomes something with real value in your eyes. To a third person, who doesn't subscribe to your idea, it is worthless.

In our world today, millions accept that idea of a dollar having value. It is something that everyone takes as a fact, even though there is still no reality behind it beyond that we give it.

The thing is that people are so tied up in their human world, their human interactions and purely human viewpoint, that they don't reallise that these fictions don't mean anything beyond that. Their world is based around what is real to them, and they have no concept of a world other than that.

Many people live to earn money. I live in halls on campus at my uni. In the corridor are a couple of people who study ecconomics. Their whole area of study, and their later jobs, are going to center around money and its nature. They are dedicating their lifes to the nature of something that has no existance beyond that that we agree to assign it.

So people can live with their whole aim and purpose being to earn money, which is, in a more objective world, absolutely nothing. Indeed, today (with the internet and creditcards) you rarely even see or touch most of the money you own.

A major part of the human life these days is dedicated towards such fictions. I could list more, but I think you can work some of them out yourself. With so much of it fictional, you can redefine your own meaning as often as you like.

Now, going to some scientific points;

The idea of abiogensis is a hard one to grasp, and requires some knowledge of chemistry, basic biology and evolutionary based logic. You understand natural selection, right? Well, combine that with organic chemistry, basic inorganic or physical chemistry, the idea of a catalyst and the scale on which the events and processes take place, and you can get the basics.

While humans are more or less evolutionary level with most other creatures that exist today, we do have some things that set us apart from them (physicaly) and that make us important in natural terms. Our inteligence suggests that there is something different enough about us to allow some slight superiority. Just not at the cost of trying to pretend that we are not animals as well, or placing ourselfs in any particularly special place in the natural scheme of things.

That is because the conditions today really don't favour it. Infact, once life starts, the odds of it starting again go down dramaticaly. The biosphere is changed, biomass is locked up and the nature of the world is drasticaly changed.

No-one in the world believes in spontainious generation of life. However, abiogensis is very different. It explains a naturalistic progression towards life.

There are many theories that follow this path. My favorite would be the Cairns-Smith version, using clay crystal catalysts as a stepping stone to organic chemistry. However, this is purely through asthetic reasons. In reality, there is little to require this claim, as chemicals without such a boost are capable of creating self replicating systems within themselfs.

Once you have a self replicating system, it is subject to natural selection. The better it reproduces itselfs in a situation; the better adapted it is to that environment, the more likely it is to become more common. So systems that reproduce more effectively become more common in the world.

All life is, ultimately, a way of exploiting different environments. An animal is a way of reproducing in a certain environment.

Anyway, I can't really outline all the theories, so I will leave you with Cairns-Smiths version and give you more as they become relevant.
http://originoflife.net/crystals/ Yet you still argue against evolution because it, in itself, doesn't give us some amazing status. If you believe that God chose humans as his people, why do you need anything else to seperate us from the animals? Most Creationists use an argument from 'common design' to explain a lot of the similarities in life. It is undeniable that we are very similar. So long as we are that similar, what difference does it make what the cause of those similarities are?

I am not going to argue souls existance, but couldn't God have given souls to a creature that had evolved through natural processes? Or maybe animals have them as well? There is nothing I have seen to deny either viewpoint.

I prefer to make the distinction because not everyone has a full understanding and missapply terms.

I prefer not to use the word faith when possible, because its day to day usage is violently different from the real term, which is what I normaly use blind faith for.

See, people use faith for justifiable faith, or belief, as you (sort of, assuming a couple of typos) describe. I prefer to use it for blind faith, or unjustified beliefs. People attack me for using faith (justified belief) while arguing against it (blind faith), so I make the distinction as clear as I can.