[Go_Raiders]

You are a little bit incoherent there. Charles Darwin never included origin of life in his work, neither has any scientist who understands the theory of evolution.

So the ‘nearly everyone’ you are talking about are uneducated in science, and here you are, a non-scientist, giving false information to those same ‘nearly everyone.’

So what we have is scientists agree that the theory of evolution regards more complex from less complex life forms, and non-scientists would rather not learn from scientists so they throw up their hands and say no one can agree.

So I guess I can agree to this- uneducated people cannot agree what the theory of evolution means.

[Moseley]

Charles Darwin never included origin of life in his work, neither has any scientist who understands the theory of evolution.

So if evolution does not address the beginning of life, how did life begin? If evolution cannot explain where life came from, that would come as a shock to all the teachers and professors teaching it, all their students studying it, the opinion leaders in society, and the general public.

This is part of the problem. In order to defend evolution when questioned in one area, its defenders always have to retreat and say it means something else entirely.

The fluid and inconstant nature of what evolution means should be proof positive that evolution cannot be defended on the basis of facts. Evolution is a belief system, faith, a religious point of view.