At the end of evolution debate threads, there is always a bunch of posts from die hard creationists who'd rather drink poison than getting an education. Oh well.
Without life, there would be no periodic table. Without the periodic table, there would be no life.
Only insofar as the periodic table was created by humans as a representation of the elementary blocks of the physical world, and humans are of course life.
You are simply wrong in saying that all life form only live off organic material. Restating nonsense does not make it less so.
New sources of nutrition provides new evolutionary niches for life to exploit. In a world full of life, naturally species will find ways to use all these rich sources of nutrition. The earliest life forms did not have this luxury, so they lived off the basic materials than they first originated in, and non-organic food.
So, are we to theorize that all life on earth has evolved from BACTERIA? That must be true if bacteria is first life. BUT, bacteria is an ARCH-ENEMY of evolution.
This is just ignorant nonsense. First, bacteria was not the earliest life. Second, the bacteria's role in decay does not make it an enemy of evolution. Quite the opposite. You seem to assume some teleological evolution, which is not what scientists do.
You simply reiterate your original "argument", already solidly rebutted, and stupidly assume that nothing in the universe can behave in ways different from the materials in your back yard. I don't think your redneck approach to biochemistry really merits any serious response.
In fact, at least here in the UK, the only information we get on the subject assumes that the audience already accepts evolution as a fact. I'm still waiting to see all this evidence that has "established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt".
If you have not seen it, it is because you haven't looked very much. As I have done before, I request you to read the article "29+ evidences for macroevolution" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
But somehow I believe you will not read this, and yet lament on never having seen the evidence that makes the whole scientific community regard evolution as a fact beyond serious debate.
You did not need to single out evolution. Lots of scientific facts are presented as such in popular media, yet most people have never seen the actual evidence. Doing so would require reading some quite technical books and articles. People generally take on the say-so of the scientific community e.g. that most diseases are caused by microorganisms, that stars are light years away, that continents rest on massive but moving plates, etc, etc. If you want the evidence for such things, it is readily available in scientific textbooks. So also with evolution. So why do people just lament the lack of in-your-face evidence for evolution? Because it runs counter to some deeply held religious convictions. That is the only reason.
One may ask that since, "evolution's truth" is "beyond reasonable doubt", then why would teachers feel besieged?
Because in the country where this happens, fundamentalist Christianity has a very strong hold on people, and fundies don't like evolution. They also are very unlikely to read scienfitic articles.
There is no scientific opposition to evolutionary biology. Only religious opposition, sometimes masqueraded in pseudo-scientific jargon. People on this message board, of everyone, should realize how deep religious convictions run, and how massive amounts of evidence can be brushed aside in the most braindead fashion by the True Believer.
We have no tangible evidence that one species evolved into another.
False. Numerous species have been observed to evolve into new species in our own time.
See for example "Observed Instances of Speciation" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Your argument seems to be that since nobody tied you to a chair and forced the evidence you have been too lazy to look up yourself down your throat, evolution is not a fact. You demonstrate so very well yourself the reason there exists opposition to evolutionary science. It is called deliberate ignorance.