If the laws of chemistry PREVENT the formation of organic molecules due to the chemical composition of the early earth atmosphere as oxydizing, then how is Darwinian-macro-evolution even acceptable as a scientific theory?
Because it is a well known FACT that the composition of the atmosphere has not always been consistent with current atmospheric conditions. The early atmosphere of the earth was not oxygen based and therefore not "oxydizing".
If macro-evolution VIOLATES the very laws of nature itself, is it not contradictory and therefore false, scientifically as well as logically?
You have yet to establish that evolution does in fact violate the "laws of nature". All you have done is ask a question, assume that the answer is consistent with your view, and then assert that your positions is therefore the only correct one. That is not the case.
The evidence tells us that chemical evolution is not possible, but complex intelligent life abounds. How is this NOT a violation of natural law?
Because the evidence does not tell us that. What is it that you are calling "chemical evolution" in the first place? Accepted science does not recognize any such thing as "chemical evolution" at current, because such a thing has not be proven or even coherently theorized. You are ignoring literal tons of historical geo-chemical and paleoclimatological evidence that refute your original assertion.
As a violation of natural law, is this not a super natural event by definition?
Again, you are assuming that your original assertion is in fact correct, it is not. Now go back to step 1 and start again, do not pass go, do not collect $200, just start over.
The evidence presented establishes that chemical evolution is not possible, therefore shouldn't Darwinian-macro-evolution be discarded as scientific theory because it's assumptions have been verified as empirically and scientifically false?
You haven't presented any evidence, please quit acting as if you have. You asked a question and asserted that your answer to that question was the right one and proceded into outright fuck all from there. Your assertion is not correct, everything from that point on is shit assertions with no factual or scientific basis.
What is the only other competing model for the origin of life?
There are no credible models for the diversity of life outside of evolutionary theory at this time. As for the origin of life you are in a completely different catagory from evolution. They are not one and the same. You throw around alot of scientific terms but you miss a crucial difference in sciences, It shows your knowledge in these matters to be superficial at best.
Shouldn't Special Creation be given due consideration since it is the model that best matches the evidence?
No. There is no evidence for "Special Creation" and there is no model as to the mechanics of special creation, the why's of special creation, or to the identity, methods, or intentions of the "creator". All you have is "god did it", and that my friend is not something that merits due consideration. Come back when you are willing to consider all the evidence that is availible and not skip over the parts that render your rantings invalid, and your "creator" non-existent.
