[MacDorcha]

similarly, the theory that 1+1=2 does NOT include 2+2=4!

you followed the logic so far, only to stop at the doorstep. if the logic is true, it is true all the way. what about the whole spectrum scares you so much? can you just not comprehend the idea that something is better than you? are you affraid of answering a simple question that relates to your supported hypothesis?

you say you claim evolution as factual in life. ok then. what step does evolution take in the actual production of life? (not changing of it, but formation)

also, think about this.

if you sat down and looked at several animals and on the list you saw an animal with no supperior strength, no natural camoflage (pink is hardly aundant in wildlife), no hard teeth, exceptional speed, flying or underwater thriving abilities: in other words, it is defenseless as well as fairly harmless.

would you pick THIS animal to survive enough generations to produce weapons and then fire and eventually, dominate the world? according to evolution and evolution alone, we should have died shortly after climbing out of the trees!

[Dimensio]

similarly, the theory that 1+1=2 does NOT include 2+2=4!

"1+1=2" is not a theory.

you followed the logic so far, only to stop at the doorstep. if the logic is true, it is true all the way.

Could you possibly relate this to the topic at hand.

what about the whole spectrum scares you so much?

I'm not afraid. I simply understand that the scope of the theory of evolution does not include abiogenesis. Evolution is a theory with a very specific and defined scope. It does not address events beyond its scope.

you say you claim evolution as factual in life.

It is the best theory given current observed evidence.

ok then. what step does evolution take in the actual production of life? (not changing of it, but formation)

None whatsoever. The ultimate origins of the first life forms where there were no life forms before is not address by evolution. Evolution only occurs when existing life forms make imperfect copies of themselevs. Because the ultimate origins of life involve, in at least one step, a point where there are no life forms at all (much less life forms making imperfect copies of themselves), evolution does not apply.

if you sat down and looked at several animals and on the list you saw an animal with no supperior strength, no natural camoflage (pink is hardly aundant in wildlife), no hard teeth, exceptional speed, flying or underwater thriving abilities: in other words, it is defenseless as well as fairly harmless.

would you pick THIS animal to survive enough generations to produce weapons and then fire and eventually, dominate the world? according to evolution and evolution alone, we should have died shortly after climbing out of the trees!

So you're saying that the human brain is not, in any way, a survival advantage?