Hello, Jurassic Park

[Narrock]

It's already been proven that man did not evolve from apes. Anybody who still believes that is a fool of epic proportions.

Man *is* an ape, taxonomically. Our nearest extant sister species is Pan (chimpanzee). We, along with chimps, orangs, gorillas are all Hominidae.
You're clearly babbling or ignorant with your claim about how it's proven we didn't evolve from apes. What ICR tract did you hear that one in, because no sane biologist would agree with you.

For discussions of age of the earth, etc see the talk.origins FAQ archive.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Specifically:
Age of the Earth: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Human Evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

If the Bibliolaters want to think we were created 6000 years ago, fine. They should just stop pretending about there being any actual physical evidence for it. And stop trying to get it taught in science classes.

--R.

Believe what you want, idiot-boy. Maybe your linneage and a select few other people semi-evolved from apes, but everybody else was always a human.

[Rust]

It's already been proven that man did not evolve from apes. Anybody who still believes that is a fool of epic proportions.

Man *is* an ape, taxonomically. Our nearest extant sister species is Pan (chimpanzee). We, along with chimps, orangs, gorillas are all Hominidae.
You're clearly babbling or ignorant with your claim about how it's proven we didn't evolve from apes. What ICR tract did you hear that one in, because no sane biologist would agree with you.

For discussions of age of the earth, etc see the talk.origins FAQ archive.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Specifically:
Age of the Earth: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Human Evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

If the Bibliolaters want to think we were created 6000 years ago, fine. They should just stop pretending about there being any actual physical evidence for it. And stop trying to get it taught in science classes.

--R.

Believe what you want, idiot-boy. Maybe your linneage and a select few other people semi-evolved from apes, but everybody else was always a human.

Well, chalk 'biology' up as something else Mindia knows (or evidently cares) nothing about, but feels free to make claims about.

"Beware the man who has read only one book." I don't mind if Mindia wants to sit in his porch, picking a banjo in ignorance, it's just him and his clone buddies who think thay should have some influence over how science is taught that's a problem. Ignorant twits who can say with a straight face that evolution is "proven false" have no right to have any influence on anyone's scientific education. Not to mention creepy echoes of the Hamitic theories in his 'some linneages(sic)'. Care to expound on that comment there?

Oh, and way to be unable to make any sort of comeback to the t.o FAQs.

--R.

[Drem]

You were expecting Mindia to read something somebody else posted and actually make a constructive response to it? lol

[Diekan]

I'd have to agree with Rustbucket on this one. It's almost funny how most religious fanatics are so blindly anti-science and yet know nothing about it.

[Yamori]

I for once agree with Mindia: I do not have apish ancestors.

I was delivered unto this world by a flash of divine light from the heavens - that shined violently with the light of a thousand stars, in fully grown and developed adult form.

As for the rest of you puny humans, you probably did evolve from a common ancestor of the monkey.

[Treehorn]

Dinosaur eats man
Woman inherits the earth!

Who needs dinosaurs?

Doomed, I say! Dooooooomed!



P.S.- For more apocalyptic scenario fun, check out the rest of Exit Mundi

[Lyion]

I'd own Rusts arguments, except that would be supporting Mindia.


Suffice to say evolution at the macro level is as much a guess as any other theory. NT has already done this debate multiple times....

[Tikker]

I'd own Rusts arguments, except that would be supporting Mindia.


Suffice to say evolution at the macro level is as much a guess as any other theory. NT has already done this debate multiple times....

Well, discuss it with me via emails then~

Evolution exists

It's a very simple concept

People just can't seem to get past that evolution isn't about suddenly sprouting wings, or apes suddenly walking upright and talking and shooting guns, but rather the gradual change of a species thru natural selection of advantagious mutations

[Lyion]

Evolution exists

It's a very simple concept

People just can't seem to get past that evolution isn't about suddenly sprouting wings, or apes suddenly walking upright and talking and shooting guns, but rather the gradual change of a species thru natural selection of advantagious mutations

It's simple. Evolution and change on a SMALL level is proven. Species mutating into other species is a theory that is wholly unproven. The Micro versus Macro argument. Science has proven that things adapt to their environment. Adaptation is not evolution to me.

Choosing to think something as complex as the human species mutated from a single cell organism to me is more a leap of faith than Creationism.

It's also interesting to know that the smartest of us over the course of history tend to be men of faith.

[Rust]

I'd own Rusts arguments, except that would be supporting Mindia.


Suffice to say evolution at the macro level is as much a guess as any other theory. NT has already done this debate multiple times....

Of course, all science is tentative, and subject to disproof. Taking that as a given, evolution is the accepted scientific theory as the best explanation of the physical evidence of the diversity of life on the planet. Obviously there are debates about aspects of the theory; science is a process of hypothesis and disproof. But to say that there is any serious scientific doubt or counter-evidence to the theory of evolution as it is today is simply to demonstrate that the speaker is does not understand evolution or is simply lying.

To label any scientific theory as 'just a theory' is mindless - all scientific theories are 'just theories'. At pain of being accused of being elitist, I would suggest that most people in general don't know much about evolutionary theory, or the philosophy of science in any event. I've been a regular reader of the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins for over a dozen years, where evolution versus Creationism is always the topic of the day. I would direct people who want a good basic understanding of evolutionary theory and the basic attacks on it by Creationists to see the t.o FAQ archive at http://www.talkorigins.org The various articles there were written by a number of people including biologists, philosophers of science, religious studies majors, physicists, geologists, and a number of educated amateurs. To be reasonably fair, it also includes links to Creationist sites like the Institute for Creation Research (Duane Gish, Henry Morris), Answers In Genesis (Ken Ham), and others.

For myself, I find evolutionary theory an ongoing source of new things to learn, even after taking several university courses in the subject, reading talk.origins for over a decade, and plowing through dozens of books on the subject.

In short, I seriously doubt Lyion really knows much about evolutionary theory, or can make a coherent attack on it that hasn't been made dozens of times before on talk.origins and trivially refuted by the regulars.

For a good book, Arthur Strahler's Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Prometheus Books; ISBN 1-57392-717-1) deals with many of the standard false statements made by Creationists about evolutionary theory. It's quite an interesting and amusing book, written by the late professor of geology at Columbia.

To understand people like Mindia, Ronald Number's book The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (University of California Press; ISBN 0-520-08393-8) gives a background to the origin of the modern fundamentalist attacks on science, and how they're a new and mostly American aberration in religion.

--R.

[Rust]

It's also interesting to know that the smartest of us over the course of history tend to be men of faith.

The men who proved that the Biblical account of the origin of the Earth was false *were* men of faith. Hutton, Lyell, Aggasiz, etc. They were looking for God's handiwork at the end of the 18th Century and looking at the planet itself convinced them that it didn't happen like Genesis says. All of them devout men, many of them graduates of Oxford and Cambridge who had degrees in religous studies.

Darwin on the other hand, was certainly agnostic by the end of his life. And his was a towering intellect.

There's no correlation between faith and intelligence. Look at Mindia.

--R.

[Lyion]

Of course I can't make an argument against evolution that hasn't been made 100 times before. Just like you cannot make an argument for it that has not been made just as often and disproven.

Evolution is a hugely flawed theory when taken above the small adaptation construct.

Whatever the scientific evidence for evolution, a purely naturalistic formulation of the theory won't hold up philosophically anymore than a purely naturalistic account of human nature as it exists today will.

We have intellects and wills, neither of which can be entirely reduced to merely natural, scientific explanations without jettisoning the reliability of all human thought and human freedom. For, as C. S. Lewis and others have argued, unless at least some of our thoughts aren't explicable wholly in terms of the physical processes of the natural world, the very scientific idea of nature itself is unreliable. For it, too, would be merely the product of biochemically determined thinking. And unless at least some of our choices aren't wholly produced by the operation of purely natural, physical laws, all our choices, including moral decisions to kill, lie, cheat or steal, would be mere products of nature. We would make them because the physical, biochemical processes of the universe compel us to; we couldn't do otherwise.

Now we all think people's thoughts or decisions are at least sometimes explicable in terms of mere physical processes. When, for instance, a drunkard tells us he's seen a pink elephant, we explain it entirely in terms of alcohol's effect on his nervous system. Or when a captured loyal soldier divulges strategic secrets to the enemy under the influence of conditioning and drugs, we don't consider him a traitor. We say he was brainwashed, and explain his actions that way rather than as a free decision to betray his country.

Those who would reduce the human mind to matter- philosophical naturalists-claim that all human thoughts and decisions are similarly reducible to particular states of brain chemistry. But no naturalist really thinks all thoughts as unreliable as his theory suggests and few would deny human freedom altogether. For doing so would undermine science and all knowledge.

If a particular version of evolutionary theory assumes a complete, purely natural continuity between human beings and other animals, including the emergence of the human mind from mere matter apart from any more-than natural-(or supernatural) cause, that view must be false. A scientist who claims to explain everything about man in terms of evolution winds up explaining nothing, for there is no basis for thinking anything he says about man is true. He traps his theory-not to mention himself-in a naturalistic straightjacket. He must hold that he himself theorizes as he does simply because the whole universe and its physical, biochemical laws move the molecules around in his head that way, not because he's discovered some "truth" about the way things are.

(Facts courtesy of my Catholic Science site)

[Langston]

I'm tiring of Rust. He posts here in an attempt to try to make people think he's smart. It's like the inverse of Gargamellow.

[Rust]

Of course I can't make an argument against evolution that hasn't been made 100 times before. Just like you cannot make an argument for it that has not been made just as often and disproven.

Evolution is a hugely flawed theory when taken above the small adaptation construct.

Whatever the scientific evidence for evolution, a purely naturalistic formulation of the theory won't hold up philosophically anymore than a purely naturalistic account of human nature as it exists today will.

We have intellects and wills, neither of which can be entirely reduced to merely natural, scientific explanations without jettisoning the reliability of all human thought and human freedom. For, as C. S. Lewis and others have argued, unless at least some of our thoughts aren't explicable wholly in terms of the physical processes of the natural world, the very scientific idea of nature itself is unreliable. For it, too, would be merely the product of biochemically determined thinking. And unless at least some of our choices aren't wholly produced by the operation of purely natural, physical laws, all our choices, including moral decisions to kill, lie, cheat or steal, would be mere products of nature. We would make them because the physical, biochemical processes of the universe compel us to; we couldn't do otherwise.

Now we all think people's thoughts or decisions are at least sometimes explicable in terms of mere physical processes. When, for instance, a drunkard tells us he's seen a pink elephant, we explain it entirely in terms of alcohol's effect on his nervous system. Or when a captured loyal soldier divulges strategic secrets to the enemy under the influence of conditioning and drugs, we don't consider him a traitor. We say he was brainwashed, and explain his actions that way rather than as a free decision to betray his country.

Those who would reduce the human mind to matter- philosophical naturalists-claim that all human thoughts and decisions are similarly reducible to particular states of brain chemistry. But no naturalist really thinks all thoughts as unreliable as his theory suggests and few, we can suspect, would deny human freedom altogether. For doing so, as we have seen, would undermine science-indeed, all knowledge.

If a particular version of evolutionary theory assumes a complete, purely natural continuity between human beings and other animals, including the emergence of the human mind from mere matter apart from any more-than natural-(or supernatural) cause, that view must be false. A scientist who claims to explain everything about man in terms of evolution winds up explaining nothing, for there is no basis for thinking anything he says about man is true. He traps his theory-not to mention himself-in a naturalistic straightjacket. He must hold that he himself theorizes as he does simply because the whole universe and its physical, biochemical laws move the molecules around in his head that way, not because he's discovered some "truth" about the way things are.

(Facts courtesy of my Catholic Science site)

I'm not exactly sure what your site is trying to claim. It seems to say that if man is simply an animal, than it is impossible to make statements about the origins of the human species, and anything claimed about human origins by such a person are automatically false.

That's a particularly sterile argument. As far as science is concerned, man is simply an animal. In spite of that scientific, naturalistic claim, scientists are quite competent to make claims about evolution. Certainly there is a debate about free will and determinism - are we merely complex biochemical machines, or is there something more - perhaps a soul?

But apart from some dramatic claims about how refusing to accept a supernatural aspect to man's origins somehow invalidates science, there's nothing but mumbo-jumbo there.

So what if my thought processes are purely the product of naturalistic processes? We're so far away from having any meaninful understanding of human thought processes that to argue that naturalism is [b]incapable[b] of explaining mental processes is simply an 'appeal to incredulity'. It's the same as saying 'well, I can't see how anyone could have an original thought unless we all have souls' - it's fundamentally an anti-scientific attitude that simply seeks to negate any claims without actually showing there is any reason to think otherwise.

Since you cited a source claiming to be Catholic, maybe we should see what the Church actually says about evolution?

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/storie ... 500591.htm

Church needs better evolution education, says bishops' official

By Catholic News Service

NEW YORK (CNS) -- Catholic educators need better teaching programs about evolution "to correct the anti-evolution biases that Catholics pick up" from the general society, according to a U.S. bishops' official involved in dialogue with scientists for 20 years.

Without a church view of human creation that is consistent with currently accepted scientific knowledge, "Catholicism may begin to seem less and less 'realistic' to more and more thoughtful people," said David Byers, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Science and Human Values from 1984 to 2003.

"That dynamic is a far greater obstacle to religious assent than evolution," he said in a bylined article in the Feb. 7 issue of America, a weekly magazine published in New York by the Jesuits. The article discussed the value of the dialogues with scientists organized by the bishops' committee.

"Denying that humans evolved seems by this point a waste of time," he said without mentioning specific controversies in the United States.

In recent years, conflicts have arisen in several parts of the country questioning whether evolution should be taught in public schools as scientific fact. In January, the public school board in Cobb County, Ga., voted to appeal a federal judge's order to remove stickers on science textbooks which said that "evolution is a theory, not a fact."

Byers said, "The official church sees little danger in evolution." He cited a 1996 speech by Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Science and a 2004 document, "Communion and Stewardship" by the Vatican's International Theological Commission.

The 2004 document "properly recognizes evolutionary theory as firmly grounded in fact," he said.

But "our educational leadership has been very slow to correct the anti-evolution biases that Catholics pick up from prominent elements in contemporary culture," he said.

Byers complained that sermons and religious education materials "routinely describe Adam and Eve as if they were an essentially modern couple," although "it is reasonable to suppose that the first humans, whatever their stature in the eyes of God, looked and lived like other hominids of their time," he added.

The Genesis creation stories should not be read literally because "they are stories, after all," he said. They are meant to express "deeper truths" about God's intent in creating humans, said Byers.

"It is wise to encourage an understanding of Scripture consistent with what we know (or think we know) in the 21st century," he said.

Byers, currently executive director of the bishops' Committee on the Home Missions, called evolution "one of the hottest battlegrounds between science and religion."

Evolutionary theory by itself "does not necessarily support any philosophical or theological generalizations," he said. "Arguments that evolution disproves God's existence or humanity's spiritual dimension are simply wrongheaded."

Debating the implications of evolution with scientists "is a healthy exercise in aligning science and religion, however the discussion turns out," he said.

Byers said church dialogue with scientists is a way of showing the scientific community that the church has important values to contribute to issues raised by their research and the applications of their knowledge.

Although most scientists are not Catholics and are skeptical at first about the value of dialogue, their attitudes often change, he said.

"While few accepted the Catholic position on the moral status of the early embryo, for example, most found the church's insistence on respecting human life at every stage serious and substantive," said Byers.

Dialogue also helps evangelization because of U.S. society's strong belief "that science offers an accurate, if limited, account of the way things are," he said.

Many Catholics question whether their religion is as in touch with reality as science is, he said.

"Dialogue between religion and science can help assuage their doubts, clearing away obstacles to a vital faith," he said.

"It can also make that faith more reasonable for those who may be considering joining the church," he said.

END

Pope John Paul II himself said to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

Taking into account the state of scientific research and the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Encyclical Humani generis considered the doctrine of 'evolutionism' a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine as though one could totally prescind from Revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return.

Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

So while I can understand a Catholic site like yours demanding a role for the supernatural in our lives, that's a religious claim, not a scientific one.

If you really have a problem with macroevolution, you should start with the Common Descent FAQ here.


--R.

[Rust]

I'm tiring of Rust. He posts here in an attempt to try to make people think he's smart. It's like the inverse of Gargamellow.

I don't post here for your sake. You've claimed you don't care about anyone here anyhow, so how about you just shut up? I mean you're brighter than Mindia, but that's faint praise at best. Maybe you should stick to fat jokes about Finawin, that's about your speed.

--R.

[Harrison]

Despite my dislike of you both...

He has a point. Your endless bag of google searches is staggering, not impressive.

[Tikker]

Evolution is a hugely flawed theory when taken above the small adaptation construct.

Why is it flawed?

You can see it fairly simply with things like bacteria(just about the only critters around with a short enough life cycle to run thru enough iterations to see a macro change)

You go thru enough generations of bacteria, and compare the 1st generation to the Nth generation, and you'll see enough difference to classify them as 2 diff't types of bacteria

extend that a million years, and you'll see enough different mutations between the 1st generation and the last, that you'll have a completely different species

[Langston]

blah blah words blah more words blah link more and more words blah blah

[Harrison]

Human beings and most animals are too complex to compare in the same way to bacterium to be fair.

[Lyion]

You think Man is a simple animal. I do not. Philosophy disagrees with you greatly, as well. Feel free to work to understand man, since your comprehension seems limited to pure science. Anyone reading your posts sees that.

I agree that anything we do not understand is worthy of studying. So does the Catholic Church. Interesting that some do not want debate, merely pure facts in something that has precious few.

Macroevolution is nothing but a guess. It has merit, but it also is nothing more than a question mark. It tries to explain what science does not have the propensity to explain. There is ZERO real proof for macroevolution. That is a fact.

The disproof of macro evolution is in the examination of the actions of men. You try to corral this with other forms of science.

However, this brand of science is wrongly lumped with other science.

The evolutionary theories are susceptible to difficulty in
establishing fact. Unlike physics or chemistry, which are verifiable
through controlled laboratory experimentation, the evolutionary disciplines
are essentially historical.

Evolutionary research over the past century has taken many twists and turns,
It changes often since it is not based on 'fact', and seems more spurned on by psuedo intellectuals like yourself with a secular agenda to further.

The scarcity of evidence, the high reliance on imaginative
interpretation, and the inherent problem of verification make the evolution theory very unreliable.

I'll fully concur it may be our current best guess in regards to 'pure science'. However, given our huge limitations in science and the fact there is so much dissent in discussions about these issues it comes down to purely subjective views.

Again, you may be an animal. I am a human being, with a soul.

(Again parts courtesy of my Catholic Science site)

[Themosticles]

Human beings and most animals are too complex to compare in the same way to bacterium to be fair.

To be fair, that was not at all what he was trying to explain.

[Harrison]

I know exactly what he was getting at.

[Rust]

You think Man is a simple animal. I do not. Philosophy disagrees with you greatly, as well. Feel free to work to understand man, since your comprehension seems limited to pure science. Anyone reading your posts sees that.

I am discussing the origin of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. It's a simple question of science. If you want to discuss metaphysics, we can do that in another thread. But don't put up a strawman and expect me to take a swing at it.

I agree that anything we do not understand is worthy of studying. So does the Catholic Church. Interesting that some do not want debate, merely pure facts in something that has precious few.

Macroevolution is nothing but a guess. It has merit, but it also is nothing more than a question mark. It tries to explain what science does not have the propensity to explain. There is ZERO real proof for macroevolution. That is a fact.

Well, first of all, science doesn't involve 'proof'. Either you mis-spoke or you really don't understand how science works. Science is a way or answering questions about the universe - 'how' questions, not 'why' questions. It is sometimes said to be 'the best explanation of the known facts'. Thus from time to time, new facts or explanations arise that contradict old explanations. Over time, then, scientific theories change as they become better able to explain the known facts. But at any time, any theory can be disproven by new evidence; therefore, speaking of 'proof' is incorrect.

The disproof of macro evolution is in the examination of the actions of men. You try to corral this with other forms of science.

Macroevolution is a well supported part of general evolutionary theory. The lines of evidence supporting it include: fossil evidence, morphology, molecular biology and genetics. The convergence of evidence supports the theory that all life on earth shares a twin-nested hierarchy of common ancestry. I again point to the talk.origins FAQ on macroevolution here that gives over two dozen evidences for macroevolution, which I hope people will go and read.

I'm not sure what sort of pseudo-mystical claim you're making above, but it really doesn't seem to be anything actually pertaining to science.

Now the next few lines just seemed too complex for you to come up with, yet still somehow badly written. I'm used to Creationists taking quotes out of context and then claiming they support their positions... did you?

However, this brand of science is wrongly lumped with other science.

The evolutionary theories are susceptible to difficulty in
establishing fact. Unlike physics or chemistry, which are verifiable
through controlled laboratory experimentation, the evolutionary disciplines
are essentially historical.


Evolutionary research over the past century has taken many twists and turns,
It changes often since it is not based on 'fact', and seems more spurned on by psuedo intellectuals like yourself with a secular agenda to further.
The scarcity of evidence, the high reliance on imaginative
interpretation, and the inherent problem of verification make the evolution theory very unreliable.

Now, you're both plagiarising and misquoting here. The quote is actually:

The evolutionary sciences are especially susceptible to difficulty in
establishing certitude. Unlike physics or chemistry, which are verifiable
through controlled laboratory experimentation, the evolutionary disciplines
are essentially historical. All the forms of paleontology (including
paleoanthropology, the study of ancient man) seek to determine what
happened to living things over the course of time. When researchers
advance hypotheses to explain fossil phenomena, they are giving *reasonable
interpretations* which are verifiable only through subsequent research.
Later findings may confirm these explanations, or perhaps render them less
plausible, or even prove them *wrong*--that is, very highly unlikely. Thus
what is generally accepted by specialists today may be outmoded only a few
years from now. The field is highly dynamic.


Evolutionary research over the past century, and especially in recent
years, has taken many such twists and turns, often leading in unexpected
directions. This unsettled condition stands to reason. The relative
scarcity of fossil evidence, the high reliance on imaginative
interpretation, the inherent problem of verification--all combine to make
this "detective" work subject to ongoing uncertainty.

It's generally considered dishonest to change the meaning of a quote, but then, you just stole it anyhow and presented it as your own. That's doubly dishonest.

I'll fully concur it may be our current best guess in regards to 'pure science'. However, given our huge limitations in science and the fact there is so much dissent in discussions about these issues it comes down to purely subjective views.

Again, you may be an animal. I am a human being, with a soul.

Science doesn't say anything about a soul. I know many evolutionists who are also Christians, Jews, or other religions. They understand that there is no conflict between evolution and religion, as did the site you took your misquotes from.

What I do know is that your source you stole from is actually quite clear that there is no contradiction between evolution (or macroevolution) and Catholicism. It does urge caution against making overeager claims about science, which is obviously a wise course in any event. For some reason, however, you decided to both steal the quote and not credit the source, as well as change it by inserting a gratuitous comment, and then somehow claim it as supporting your dislike of scientific theory.

You've engaged in pretty standard Creationist misquoting habits. I'm disappointed. Like I said, it's nothing I haven't seen over and over again for the last dozen years on talk.origins. Your argument boils down to 'I think man is special so I don't believe evolution'. That's simply not scientific; but then, neither is misquoting or plagiarism.

You owe everyone here an apology.

--R.

[Tikker]

If you know what I was getting at, and still didn't understand my point, you're a bigger idiot than I imagined Finawin


but for lyion

Macroevolution is nothing but a guess. It has merit, but it also is nothing more than a question mark. It tries to explain what science does not have the propensity to explain. There is ZERO real proof for macroevolution. That is a fact.

Let's take a step back and clarify a couple of things

Evolution does not explain the origin of life

It does attempt to explain how the original living organisms were able to change/evolve into multiple different species


Is it still possible that some higher power came along and jumpstarted life?
sure

creationism and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive

[Harrison]

Just because I understand your point doesn't mean I wholeheartedly agree with it.