Replies

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?

the topic at hand was that evolutionary theory is exclusive. evolutionary logic begs us to answer more though. you're refusal to answer more, while simply stating Creationists are wrong only proves your ignorance. your only counter-point is a dismissal, which is a sure sign of your losing ground.

and i am saying the human brain, according to evolution, would have taken several dozen generations to hone into anything more practical than our other animal friends'.

this leads into "half a wing is useless" hypothesis. i dont recall the man, but it was shortly after Darwin released his theory that this was brought up.

the thing is, if birds have wings, and they came from say raptors... when did raptors form a use for a wing?

similarly, if bald monkeys evolved a brain, when was an iq of 40 a boon?

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

and yes, it is.

1/3 = .33333...

2/3 = .66666...

3/3 = .999999....? no, it is 3 divided by 3, or "1"

1 mole of oxygen plus 2 moles of hydrogen (plus energy)= 1 mole of water. (1+2=1)

given a strictly algebraic approach, 1+1=2 often enough that we can assume it with little or no effect (except in synergy) but take it into any other frame of mind, and the result can be anywhere. thus, 1+1=2 is a theory.