Originally posted by edgar
well how can natural selection be created from atoms if they first had to develop into life?
Self-replicating molecules; inorganic molecules that are able to replicate. The principle of natural selection would apply to these inorganic molecules in the same way it does to life; those molecules that are better suited for survival produce more 'offspring' than those that are not.
u wud have to have life inorder to have evolution
Technically speaking, yes; Evolution is specifically about the genetic composition of a population but the principles of evolution apply to many things.
Many of the problems that crop up in such discussions and in many peoples' understanding of Biological Evolution is that the word evolution has many meanings. The word evolution, in fact, was used over 100 years before the theory of evolution was invented.
The fact of Evolution "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations" is not under debate, it is a fact. The various theories of evolution that attempt to describe exactly how evolution has and does occur is what Creationists hotly refute and the particulars of which are still being debated by Biologists.
The Creationist terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution are really only an attempt at diversion because they really describe the same thing, only over shorter and longer series of generations. If one accepts that small changes happen over a short number of generations then one must provide a mechanism whereby these changes do not accumulate over many generations to become large differences (speciation or a new genus). To the best of my knowledge, no such mechanism has even been hypothesized much less proven.
and no it is impossible for matter to create from nothing there had to be someting to cause it
Not according to the evidence. There is a phenomenon known as the Casimir Effect which is caused by particles that pop into and out of existence without cause due to the quantum uncertainty principle.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/VirtualParticle.html
Of course, this is something of a tertiary argument; there is no reason to assume that the fundamental forces of nature are not eternal. Again, the it is the arbitrary application of a property (being eternal) to one solution (cosmology) but not to the other (God).
~Raithere