Who has the burden of proof?
If we were to discover a fully automated factory of some kind on the Moon or Mars, we would have to assume it is the product of design, at least until we could satisfactorily show that it is not.
This situation "defaults" to a designer, and the burden of proof resides on those who champion an alternate, much more complicated explanation. The existence of the designer *is* an explanation, in fact it is the simplest one. And please, no "who created the designer" questions, IF he is necessary, then he DOES exist, and he has the property of having always existed.
And even if you can show that life does not require a designer, you still need something at a very fundamental level to have "always existed". The fact that the Big Bang occurred means there was something before the Big Bang. If there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang, there would be absolutely nothing right now. The universe needs an uncaused cause, the only question is whether this "uncaused cause" has intelligence or not.
Let's make one small thing clear though: none of the revealed religions are correct. If you spend any time researching the origin of the so-called sacred texts, you see that the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the New Testament and the Koran were all written by MEN. They are *not* the "Word of God".
So who's actually making the more extraordinary claim here, the idea that something that looks designed WAS designed, or the idea that life gives the astounding illusion that it was designed, but that in fact it was not. The second claim requires EXTENSIVE demonstration to be valid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So, as of 2007, what is the pathway, starting from rocks and water, that leads to the LUCA?