[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?

No, I mean, just because we haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean its illogical, or god, or whatever else. And divine/supernatural explanations require divine/supernatural evidence. I'll believe anything, but the more outlandish the claim the better the evidence better be to support it.

[quote]...and divine/supernatural explanations require divine/supernatural evidence.[/quote]I thought you would have agreed with physical evidence. Oh well...

Like what? The bible saying something happened isn't physical evidence.

Evidence: We exist; thus, we need a cause. God's eternal; thus, He needs no cause.

God has no evidence. So many people need a cause, that's fine. One persons cause is another's folly. Each individuals cause is something they make for themselves. You're getting way offtopic. Man having a cause doesn't affect evolution.

[quote]God has no evidence.[/quote]Evidence: Irreducible Complexity in Biology.[quote]So many people need a cause, that's fine. One persons cause is another's folly.[/quote]What?[quote]Each individuals cause is something they make for themselves.[/quote]What?[quote]You're getting way offtopic.[/quote]You just stated what I was thinking.[quote]Man having a cause doesn't affect evolution.[/quote]I wasn't talking about man. I was talking about everything.

Irreducible conplextiy is a made up idea by creationists. Evolution isn't built from the top down, it's built from the bottom up. Extremely simple versions of modern body parts are what evolved over time to what we see today. This is evident in the fossil record. When creationists such as yourself quote Darwin in Origin Of Species about the eye, they leave out how he goes on to say [quote] If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case...... When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of vox populi, vox dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. [/quote] He recognizes that the structures evolution created are indeed amazing, but how they began simply and over millions of years became complex is what makes it all believable. Stop sucking up religious propaganda. That shit rots your brain. So your precious creationist quote of Darwin is simply taken out of context. As you can see even at that point in time there was enough fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution. Now over 150 years later we have even more evidence and evolution stands solidly upon reality.

Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong. I admit to not knowing the rest of the quote, but since Darwin assumed that it was caused by Natural Selection in minuet stages over ever-changing moments in human biology, would that not mean that our eyes are still "evolving" into something more complex than now, or was that just Darwin speculating, and if yes that the eye is evidently ever-changing, would that not mean that anything determine as complex would have to evolve into something slightly more complex in the next generation?