No, it's easy to understand. Understanding it is determined by how long one decides to sit his butt in the chair and study, and in my studies, I've found that: (1) Evolution has no explanation to its own origin of organic life. (2) Charles Darwin has doubt to his own "theory" ([i]On the Origin of Species[/i], Chapter 6). (3) There is no evolutionary explanation to the origin of intelligence. (4) Evidence for micro-evolution (e.g., dogs and wolves, cats and lions, yet are still Canis and Felines) exists. (5) Evidence for macro-evolution (e.g., fish to reptiles, dinosaurs to chickens, monkeys to humans, etc) doesn't exists. Only speculated info from matching look-a-likes and slightly different chromosome counts.

[quote]No, it's easy to understand. Understanding it is determined by how long one decides to sit his butt in the chair and study, and in my studies, I've found that: (1) Evolution has no explanation to its own origin of organic life. (2) Charles Darwin has doubt to his own "theory" ([i]On the Origin of Species[/i], Chapter) (3) There is no evolutionary explanation to the origin of intelligence. (4) Evidence for micro-evolution (e.g., dogs and wolves, cats and lions, yet are still Canis and Felines) exists. (5) Evidence for macro-evolution (e.g., fish to reptiles, dinosaurs to chickens, monkeys to humans, etc). Only speculated info from matching look-a-likes.[/quote] I already responded to that. It's basically all irrelevant to whether or not evolution is true.

[quote]I already responded to that. [b]It's [/b]basically all [b]irrelevant to whether or not evolution is true.[/b][/quote]Is there something wrong with this statement?

What is wrong with it?

Read the bold. If you meant it on purpose, I can only assume you are Deistic.

Idk how you can assume that from what I said. Anyway no. I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Sin (1): You used Wikipedia. Sin (2): You stated, "It's basically all irrelevant to whether or not evolution is true." Why? That's so neutral.

1 - we are not writing a research paper in college. We are on a video game forum. It's no big deal 2 - no it's not neutral. What you said has nothing to do with evolution being true. And I already told you why

You seem not to grasp the fact that: (1) Evolution has no explanation to its own origin of organic life. (2) Charles Darwin has doubt to his own "theory" ([i]On the Origin of Species[/i], Chapter) (3) There is no evolutionary explanation to the origin of intelligence. (4) Evidence for micro-evolution (e.g., dogs and wolves, cats and lions, yet are still Canis and Felines) exists. (5) Evidence for macro-evolution (e.g., fish to reptiles, dinosaurs to chickens, monkeys to humans, etc). Only speculated info from matching look-a-likes.

[quote]You seem not to grasp the fact that: (1) Evolution has no explanation to its own origin of organic life. (2) Charles Darwin has doubt to his own "theory" ([i]On the Origin of Species[/i], Chapter) (3) There is no evolutionary explanation to the origin of intelligence. (4) Evidence for micro-evolution (e.g., dogs and wolves, cats and lions, yet are still Canis and Felines) exists. (5) Evidence for macro-evolution (e.g., fish to reptiles, dinosaurs to chickens, monkeys to humans, etc). Only speculated info from matching look-a-likes.[/quote] That makes no sense Irrelevant to the fact of evolution and irrelevant to the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection That you know of, but also irrelevant That makes no sense Misunderstanding of evolution and ignoring DNA evidence. Evolution is evolution. Micro and macro describes time.

If you were to estimate how much time it took humanity to come into being from the same ancestors between humans and monkeys, how long would it take for you to soon to distinguish them as a new species? I don't just walk up to an orangutan and say, "That's one dumb, hairy human who has no capabilities of speaking. Let me go help and 'teach this man to fish.'" Accordingly, evolution requires time for every organism to develop, but what spawns the necessity for an instant but minuet, biological change that we all categorize as macro-evolution? The insect scenario required the environmental hazards that were present to the ancestors to always be present in order to prevent the evidently cyclical process of micro-evolution from reversing. Humans are not able to live for hundreds of years; so the only thing we can do to attempt to prove evolution true through our scientific processes is to observe micro-evolution in action and point out that those results are substantiated evidence. However, the process is evidently cyclical. It is said by many evolutionists that the earth created a sundry array of gases to cool the earth so to make it prolific for bearing life. Scientifically, we know that organic and inorganic material alone can't have any reaction with each other in order to spawn or reproduce biological material of any kind. Then how did life begin, or better yet, where on Earth did an amoeba come from? Let's skip that question since all evolutionists appear to want to do is skip that fact. Alright, an amoeba is on Earth, somehow. Now, in order to either help stabilize the environment or the biological specimen itself, it must evolve. How? By going through a process that we call micro-evolution. Over millions to billions of years, that amoeba will genetically figure out to grow a limb. Then that second amoeba, who we know not where it came from, decides to help, or at least decides to either not exist and all biologically life as we know it was a hermaphrodite (possessing both sexes) in the first place, reproduces. This process repeatedly occurs over millions to billions of years in order for life to become stable on Earth. Correct? Question: If life was already at a state of environmental equilibrium, why would it need to evolve in the first place? To rid itself of mutations? Some evolutionists say that it is by this process micro-evolution drives macro-evolution on a profound scale, but by the dogma of "Natural Selection," that which is mutated is declined by its kind for procreation. How many people are willing to "fall in love" with a retarded human being? They are human and are given as much right as the next, but the lucky love life often bestowed upon such a person is rare and discouraged. It might by which the process of evolution uses to promote the biology of humans to a higher state up the evolutionary chain, which is strangely determined by nothing that evolutionists can explain. Environment? No. Mutations? We all know that it is by "Natural Selection" that we as a biological organisms "evolve" very slowly quench mutations one genetic step at a time. Then what? What in this bloody world could have ever jump started our existence in the first place?

TL;NR lol You don't understand evolution. Why would i read that? You are either a troll or you don't understand it like I said. There's no way you can have all of the conversations you had with ppl from this forum on evolution, And still have the same arguments.

I understand evolution perfectly. If you want to make a list of what I don't, I'll be happy to do so.

Seen it plenty of time bruh. You are a lost cause.

Sadly, I can say the same for you.

I'd rather be lost with science. So I'm find with that.

I'd rather be sure with logic; so I'm fine with that.

I've already taken apart all of his arguments, buy he still just copy pastes them like it never happened.

You still have not provided me an answer to my question.

I answered every one of your questions.

What is the origin of organic life manifesting from non-organic material? And don't say, "The study of abiogenesis has no explanation yet."

Why would I answer a question with a false answer? It hasn't been discovered yet! Lack of scientific answer at this time doesn't constitute a divine one. Its part of chemistry. And technically, an organic material is one that contains carbon. Carbon is made in stars, so there ya go.

[quote]Why would I answer a question with a false answer? It hasn't been discovered yet![/quote]Do you mean to say, "Because there is no answer as to why it is illogical (having no explanation) is the reason why one should consider the possibility that it's true"?[quote]Lack of scientific answer at this time doesn't constitute a divine one.[/quote]To you, what would?