>One problem for origin-of-life theories is that
there are several faults in the foundation of what "scientists" believe.
Could say a lot about this. But there are serious issues that come along with the assumptions about what Earth used to be like. Alternative theories allow for far better explainations to the many "mysteries" that "scientists" can never figure out, because they've been too heavily invested in predispositions that have never been proven as factual.
Best setting for origins of life are not found on Earth today, anywhere. All of our theories are based off assumptions that Earth has been orbiting the sun for several billions of years, while slowly cooling off, after somehow gravitationally coalescing out of clumps of matter leftover from when the sun hypothetically gravitationally collapsed out of clumps of matter leftover from shit that we have no proof of, but…
I hope you get the idea. They made up a bunch of bull shit that they can never test to verify, then set it back so far in time that they don't have to address the many inconsistencies in their thought process.
Earth used to be a tidally locked body around a different type of star. There is evidence to support that statement. One of which being the fact that there is life on Earth here today, which couldn't have came into existence under these circumstances. Given the arrangement, it is likely that Earth did NOT rotate during the period when there was one main landmass. So, there was no "Day or Night". That's kind of what the "Creation" "Myths" are about. It's possible that this arrangement was disturbed by a close encounter with another celestial body, which may or may not have resulted in us getting our moon. There is evidence to support this.
Also, there are several points I could make about the various clues readily known in the fossil record. Notably, the size of creature, once again, could not have existed under current conditions here on Earth. This is something that cannot be explained simply by temperature variations. It requires significantly less of a "gravitational" force than what we observe today. Sadly, our misunderstanding of what "gravity" actually is, is yet another critical flaw in the foundation of "science".
I'm going tohave to explain this stuff to people for the rest of my life. So, I better get the practice in now