Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which brings up another good point.
Nonetheless, there are trillions upon trillions of planets. Unless you have a definitive count of the number of planets in the universe (protip: no one does), it is irrational to say that the Earth is fine-tuned for life. Even if the conditions necessary for life to develop naturally are incredibly fine and sensitive, the sheer number of planets in the universe could well vastly exceed the improbability of life forming - that is, there could be thousands, millions of life-bearing planets out there by the sheer statistics of it.
OK.
The article is a mess of mischaracterisations ("Lifes error correction, avoidance and repair mechanisms themselves suffer the same damage and decay"), disingenuous claims ("The consequence is that all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay"; "Mutation rates are so high that they are clearly evident within a single human lifetime, and all individuals suffer, so natural selection is powerless to weed them out"), and outright erroneous lies about how mutation actually occurs ("However, recent discoveries show that mutation is the purely physical result of the universal mechanical damage that interferes with all molecular machinery"). It even argues against itself ("The effects are mostly so small that natural selection cannot see them anyway, even if it could remove their carriers" - if this is the case, then mutations aren't going to kill us all, contradicting the entire article).
Irrelevant. You claimed they proclaim God, yet none do.
I disagree. So-called living fossils are those species who haven't experienced much in the way of selection pressures. The deep ocean has remained largely static for tens of millions of years; cataclysmic events are devastating to the atmosphere, but not so much to the oceans. Nevertheless, even these species, which show remarkable similarity to their deep ancestors, still show morphological changes (source).
Indeed, and we see the evolution of novel, advantageous features and functions in lab- and wild- species, the quintessential example being that of the nylon-eating bacteria.
This is simply incorrect. Evolution posits the existence of a universal common ancestor 3.5 billion years ago as part of its explanation of the biodiversity of life. It doesn't care where the common ancestor came from - abiogenesis, aliens, God. The veracity of abiogenesis is utterly unrelated to the veracity of evolution - true or false, evolution stands on its own merits. It is a common misconception among Creationists, but a misconception nonetheless.
