Yes the theory of evolution and the big bang a separate theories, however they are still both believed by the majority of who believe one. That is to say, if you believe one then you probably believe the other. Evolution assumes that life existed all along, which is a similar problem with the Big Bang, which assumes that stuff already exists. Logically, if you travel far enough back in time you'll come to a point where there is no past. This would be the beginning of the universe. It shouldn't even exist because it could not have created itself. Then matter comes along, where did it come from? It may have been there all along from the beginning. Anyhow, perhaps matter itself is as complex as life. I don't see scientists appreciate the complexity of particles - they just try to explain them. Trying to explain something they can't, something that really can't be explained, just theorized about. Gluons are a good example of simply bad science. They're something someone made up, nothing that has ever been observed, measured or tested ever showed their existence, or even hinted towards it.

They're a dream. A theory with no evidence whatsoever, simply put there by scientists to make more explainable something so complex. And comparing a virus to life is like comparing apples to oranges. Viruses infect living cells, they use the genetic code contained within those cells. It's futile to assume that a virus would be able to modify itself without the presence of living cells (since that is how it changes). Therefore it's also futile to assume it may have been the origin of life - a virus relies on living cells to infect! It does not even replicate without living cells. It's an artificial chicken-and-egg scenario. Viruses don't create life, they infect it, break it down and destroy it.

"on thing to say to you danielB NATURAL SELECTION IS EVOLUTION... again learn about what you are argueing b4 you argue and if this whole time you have been thinking that evolution relies on genes being created to coup with a change i am going to be very angy because it is the opposite of that. mutations occur and then if the enviroment that the creature lives in favor that mutation it will grow and become prodominat in the population."

Rubbish. Natural selection just uses the diversity of genes. Perhaps you've heard of the Moths of the Industrial Revolution which Evolutionists like to use to try and prove Evolution. You have a moth that has genes for white, and genes for black. The white moth was able to sit on the trees and not be seen, but when soot covered the trees they were seen and eaten. Instead it was the black moths who were out-living the white ones. And then, when the trees were white again we saw white moths being the ones to out-live, since they were the ones who could again camouflage on the tree trunks and branches.

Of course, the entire time both black and white moths of the particular species existed. About 95% were white, then about 95% were black (due to the white ones being seen and eaten by birds). Then the moth "evolved" again and 95% was, again, white. How you can confuse natural selection with evolution baffles even me. The genes existed all along. The moth didn't adapt to the new environment, it didn't mutate its genes to be more beneficial. Simply some died because they were the wrong colour.

And even if all the genes to create the white or black colour were destroyed - it doesn't prove evolution. Far from it. The very most that would prove is loss of genetic information. For evolution what you need to prove is generation of new genetic information. And from the sound of it, we are far more likely to experience and observe losing genetic information - we have never observed the reverse happening.