I must apologise as I misunderstood your first part about answering questions latter. I was expecting some more answers and so just acknowledge you comment as I like to do. When look at comments from the WordPress tool-bar only shows you a little bit at a time and thus I did not get the right understanding.
I recommended ICR as they provide extra information and are specialists in this field. Your first 2 answers seem basic when evolution is taken as fact and a scientific truth when in actual fact it is a theory which now has more questions than answers. Using the questions words to answer it is what I am used to from many people. I know someone who took many hours to just agree what they were talking about and convinced the other person did not understand English and was deliberately being difficult to waste his time. I dealt with a Luciferian who I spent over 2 weeks answering all her questions although to be told that she would not answer mine as each Luciferian has their own set of beliefs. The only information she did convey was intellectual mumbo jumbo which said nothing.

Best Wishes
Raymond

Question 1 (How did life originate?): Well, you already have the answer, from two people who sound like respectable experts in their field. One said “nobody knows” and the other said “we don’t really know.” That seems pretty definitive and accurate to me. We may know someday, though.

Question 2 (How did the DNA code originate?): Chemical interactions at the level of DNA are a little beyond my level of understanding, but from what I do understand the answer is similar to the answer to question 1: we don’t know. Scientists suspect RNA probably came first, and DNA developed from it, or after it anyway, but we can’t make it from scratch as far as I’m aware.

Question 3 (How could mutations – accidental copying mistakes – . . . create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?): This is a serious question! With random mutation, you can’t get a microbiologist from a microbe. It would be impossible. But this is only half the story. The reason question 3 seems so impossible is you’ve separated it from question 4.

Question 4 (Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as “evolution,” as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?): The question goes on to say that the process of natural selection is “selective” not “creative” and it only operates on existing information. That is true, and this is the part that I found so poetic. I never thought of it like this before. Natural selection is not creative at all, that’s true. You can’t have natural selection alone, because it only operates on existing information. What else is there? Well, there are these wonderful little self-replicating chemical molecules we call DNA. Every once in a while, what happens? As you said in question 3, sometimes there are accidental copying mistakes. By themselves, the copying mistakes would never get you a more complex thing from a less complex thing, because they are totally random. But you also have natural selection! When a gene makes a mistake in copying itself, that mistake is new information. It’s an error in copying, so it is random information, but it is also new information. Natural selection, you yourself said, operates only on existing information. But new information exists! It comes from those random mistakes in copying. Natural selection operates on the random mistakes, and since random mistakes are new information, it actually does operate on new information.

So both questions are impossible considered separately – accidental mistakes can never randomly lead to complex creatures, and natural selection can never be creative when it operates on the same existing information. But when natural selection operates on new information – that is, the mistakes in the DNA – then the process as a whole does become creative. The “mistakes” in DNA are selected and shaped by the environment around them (natural selection) and transformed into beings of astonishing complexity. All you need is self-replication, with mistakes, operated on by natural selection. I think it is an extraordinarily beautiful thought that life is created through a process of, if you will permit me some poetic license, learning from mistakes. Thanks for giving me that new perspective.

Oh yes, I said I would try for question 12: I think a lot of evolutionary just-so stories about human behavior are pretty dumb, and I get tired of them myself. Human behavior is far too complex to be described or explained in such simple ways, and many evolutionary biologists would probably agree with me on that.