Giving up.

Then you would be wrong

Then you would be wrong

You haven't presented an argument yet as to why you think I'm wrong. Chime in with one of those at any time.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you just repeated what you said.

Declaring something isn't logical simply displays your ignorance. Either name the appropriate logical fallacy or go study some biology, dumbass.

I've disputed the single cell thing many times and every time evolutionists blow me off and insult me. I'm not assuming, but it seems like you have no answer. But if you do, I really would like to know, sincerely, how a single cell could appear and then multiply into billions more.
Also calling me a dumbass achieves nothing except as a vent for your anger. And I believe the logical fallacy here would be that life cannot come from non-life.

Firstly we know that life does come from non-life. Example: Life on earth. At one point there was no life, and then through abiogenesis life began. Once life began a process we call evolution caused single cells to become billions. The evidence for both of these things is overwhelming and beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no logical fallacy to say life cannot come from non-life, as it has happened at least once as an observable fact. As to the actual mechanism involved, you would need to consult a biologist. I'm a physicist. The reason biologists blow you off, is because you refuse to accept their explanations. That makes you a dumbass, dumbass.

Please show me where it is proven that biogenesis is an overwhelming fact beyond reasonable doubt. Also as for the observable fact, I know of no time when people saw life appearing out of non-life.

*Throws a biological text book at TheBioNerd. Is delighted at the coconut-like sound as it bounces of his head*

Also please learn what "observable" and "evidence" means before commenting again. Your level of ignorance is too high for reasonable conversation. Check out the Dunning-Kruger effect for your symptoms.

It's quite funny how you declare that we know that the beginning of life on earth is true because we know life can come from non-life, giving the beginning of life on earth as an example. I believe this is called circular reasoning. *throws a logic book at Wiley_Quixote. Is delighted as he watches him try to struggle to comprehend it*

Then you don't understand what circular reasoning is. You want an example of life appearing from non-life, life on earth is such an example. It is not a circular argument, dumbass. Try again.

OH MY GOD IT'S A FREAKING MEME SHUT UP!