[Gargantua]

"If you're trying to get life forms without them being created by a previous generation of life forms, you can't use evolution theory to explain it."

I see.

So how about what The Theory of Evolution refers to as the first forms of life? If your above-quoted statement is correct, even those "first" life forms had to come from another... or, to quote you (again), "you can't use evolution theory to explain it [them]."

Perhaps that previous life form was... God?

Your above quote is, like The Theory it struggles to defend, intellecto-phlegm feebly disguised as self-important, self defeating gibberish. Garbage in, garbage out.

;-/

[Dimensio]

So how about what The Theory of Evolution refers to as the first forms of life? If your above-quoted statement is correct, even those "first" life forms had to come from another... or, to quote you (again), "you can't use evolution theory to explain it [them]."

The theory of evolution does not address how the first life forms came into existence. It only works when life forms exist. Anything beyond that is outside of the scope of evolution.

Perhaps that previous life form was... God?

If you want to suggest such a thing, fine. Just don't expect me to believe that you've a scientific theory for it. Even if you did, it wouldn't be part of the theory of evolution.

Your above quote is, like The Theory it struggles to defend, intellecto-phlegm feebly disguised as self-important, self defeating gibberish. Garbage in, garbage out.

The fact that you don't like the scope of evolution does not falsify the theory.