[LiberalGunNut]

(Why? Didn't it evolve from something, like viruses? What about viruses? Are they living or not? What's the transition between viruses and single celled bacteria and if viruses are living, that would be evolution. And if viruses are living they had to evolve from something else. What was that?)

I don't know what you are trying to say, scientists have never said viruses evolved into single celled bacteria. There is a great to debate about whether or not a virus is a living thing. It is a microparticle that can only replicate by attaching itself to a living cell. It doesn't meet the requirements of a living organism. They did not "transition " into bacteria. If anything it is the other way around.

Look, you can keep saying "WHERE DID THIS COME FROM" or "WHERE DID THAT COME FROM" but it won't change the fact that whatever the answer is HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

Here is the definition of Evolution (courtesy of Wikipedia):

In biology, evolution is change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by changes in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones.

All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record

---

Notice something? There is NO MENTION OF THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. It doesn't matter. ABIOGENESIS is the area of science that concerns itself with the Origin of Life.

If every single idea in abiogenesis science is debunked, the Theory of Evolution would remained unscathed. Ok, get it now?

[caffe]

not ok............you see, from your primitive Wikipedia definition of evolution, it's again made obvious that atheistic evolutionists make up their ow rules and then adjust their own rules to any new discovery that conflicts with their old rules. It's a circle that goes around and around, meaningless.

[metmom]

What I get is that evolutionists won't accept abiogenesis as part of evolution, yet they are intrinsically interconnected; the end point of abiogenesis is the beginning point of evolution. Evolution is just the continuation of the same process only dealing with the self-replicating forms of chemical compounds. By definitions given here on FR, abiogenesis is the process of the formation of life, evolution is the process of life changing, however, you can't have evolution without abiogenesis and you're still stuck with two problems. One is the definition of life and where to make that distinction; the other is that spontaneous generation has already been disproved. So evolutionists can't afford to include abiogenesis in their theory because the spontaneous generation complication would reduce the whole theory to a smoking pile of rubble. Manipulating definitions and making arbitrary distinctions between theories just to prop one up is what's intellectually dishonest.