Race, do I *really* have to explain to you the difference between "nonliving matter" and "nothing"? Your original statement was in error. Learn to accept your mistakes gracefully when they are pointed out to you.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, we most certainly do have "anything other than to believe", we have mountains of evidence on our side.
No, you believing that people came from hydrogen gas just on normal observed physical principles is faith, yet you fail to see what you believe. That is insanity.
You're getting shrill, son.
And could you rephrase "yet you fail to see what you believe" into something more resembling a coherent thought? Thanks.
Again, though, accepting what all the available evidence indicates is hardly a matter of "faith", much less "insanity".
Actually, between the two of us, I have been the only one speaking the truth,
Odd, then, that it so often differs from the actual sources you claim to be representing. Isn't bearing false witness a sin?
and you show you dont know the actual issue.
If that belief makes you happy, then I'm happy for you.
But just for giggles, do feel free to give a specific example of where you imagine that I "don't know the actual issue".
While most of what you write is more or less correct, this is definitely not true. A number of the ancient Greeks promoted the idea of the evolution of creatures. For better or for worse, the most influential -- Plato and Aristotle -- were not among them. From a typical website on evolution:Evolution is not so much a modern discovery as some of its advocates would have us believe. It made its appearance early in Greek philosophy, and maintained its position more or less, with the most diverse modifications, and frequently confused with the idea of emanation, until the close of ancient thought. The Greeks had, it is true, no term exactly equivalent to " evolution"; but when Thales asserts that all things originated from water; when Anaximenes calls air the principle of all things, regarding the subsequent process as a thinning or thickening, they must have considered individual beings and the phenomenal world as, a result of evolution, even if they did not carry the process out in detail. Anaximander is often regarded as a precursor of the modem theory of development. He deduces living beings, in a gradual development, from moisture under the influence of warmth, and suggests the view that men originated from animals of another sort, since if they had come into existence as human beings, needing fostering care for a long time, they would not have been able to maintain their existence. In Empedocles, as in Epicurus and Lucretius, who follow in Hs footsteps, there are rudimentary suggestions of the Darwinian theory in its broader sense; and here too, as with Darwin, the mechanical principle comes in; the process is adapted to a certain end by a sort of natural selection, without regarding nature as deliberately forming its results for these ends.