Evolutionists - two fundamental equations???

Question

1 - The evolutionary formula for making a universe:
Nothing+nothing=two elements+time=92 natural elements+time= all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order

2 - The evolutionary formula for making life:
Dirt+water+time=living creatures

Evolutionists theorize that the above two formulas can enable everything about us to make itself—with the exception of man-made things, such as automobiles or buildings.Complicated things,such as wooden boxes with nails in them,require thought, intelligence,and careful workmanship.But everything else about us in nature (such as hummingbirds and the human eye) is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps,random confusion,and time. You will not even need raw materials to begin with.They make themselves too.
Am I correct in stating the above? Is it logical? Are these theories truly scientific keeping in mind that for a scientific theory to be proven it must be observed, tested and possible to recreate? If evolutionists believe in such theories, isn’t evolution classified as a religion?

Answer 1

Some suggest that aliens planted the initial seeds of life here, so add that into the forumula. The notion is called Panspermia.

Answer 2

#1 is wrong. There WAS something. There was no universe yet (perhaps there was some extrinsic para-space/para-time, who knows). However, there was either a singularity or a vacuum -- and one must remember that the void EXISTS.

You're also wrong in assuming that structured and ordered things need intelligence. They do not. They need energy input. This is the nature of the second law of thermodynamics -- it asserts that any closed system (remember that term) will tend towards chaos, not order (and even that isn't entirely the right way to phrase it -- I'll explain in a bit). Creationists then assume that evolution must be false because it creates order -- forgetting that Earth is NOT a closed system. On average, each day every point on earth gets 12 hours of outside energy -- from the sun.

Now, I said that the chaos/order dichotomy isn't quite right either -- ultimately, it is more correct to say that entropy increases. If you create a LOT of entropy and a little order, you are still keeping the second law. For example, you dissolve a bit of sugar in water, then leave it. The water eventually evaporates in the form of water vapor, a gas, which is HIGHLY entropic, while the sugar forms perfectly ordered crystaline latices, which is mildly ordered. The entropy has increased even though you now have some nicely ordered crystals.

Answer 3

"But everything else about us in nature (such as hummingbirds and the human eye) is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps,random confusion,and time."

Everyone always brings up the human eye example. But listen to the below quote; it's a description about how the human eye ISN'T an example of perfect design:

"The structure of the human (as well as all mammals) eye: The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot. Six muscles move the eye when three would suffice."

If a creator "created" the human eye, why would those problems exist? Everyone always brings up the eye example and tries to claim that the eye is so perfect and awesome that only God must have created it, but really, it's not. It might as well have been evolution, because an unguided natural process creating something that is imperfect makes a lot more sense than an intelligent creator creating something that is imperfect.

***

To the person above me: The "Darwin recanted on his death bed" story is totally false. Look it up.

Answer 4

1 - The fundie formula for making a universe:
God + Chaos = Universe

2 - The fundie formula for making life:
Dirt + water + God = living creatures

You're being unfair. If you're going back to "before the beginning," then you should do that for religion as well, and be asking, "Where did God come from?"

> result of accidental mishaps,random confusion,and time
Flip a coin. Flip it long enough and you'll come up with 20 heads in a row. Now throw away all results that weren't 20 heads in a row. You're really great at flipping that coin!

Answer 5

First of all, those are not equations. Nor, are they theories. What you have stated might be at best considered hypotheses. The difference being that a hypothesis is merely a statement of understanding, a potential explanation. For a hypothesis to become a theory, there must be significant evidence to support it as the most likely explanation as to why something is as it is. The Theory of Gravity has been proven as has the Theory of Evolution.

Your understanding of both creation and evolution appears to be incorrect and illogical. Evolution is NOT a religion because it does not rely upon faith. Evolution has two primary "proofs." First of all, we have billions of years of fossils. Secondly, what intelligent people all know about evolution is that it has one primary mechanism, namely, natural selection. As natural selection is ongoing and one can observe it all over the world, we can see evolution in process and in response to changes in the environment even today. Evolution is a fact just like gravity. It is highly irrational that people continue to debate this topic.

Answer 6

Nice "strawman" theory you have there., Perhaps if you had an understand of evolution you wouldnt have made such an erroneous statement.

It is the belilevers who think that man was created from dirt. We free thinkers are aware of the amino acids that came together to form the first living molecules..... And, if you study it, the human eye is "designed" backwards and inside out, and tends to fail with age. Hardly the design of an all might, all knowing creator...

Answer 7

A scientist whose name I can not recall right now DID produce amynoacids on a lab, out of UREA(That's fertilizer for you)

The evolution theory, first, does not address the origin of the universe, and second does not say the materials "created" themselves.

What I really don't understand is why you christian fanatics have such a hard time accepting evolution; why can't you just concile evolution and religion like most intelligent people do?

Answer 8

`The inferior mans reasons for hating knowledge are not hard to discern. He hates it because it is complex - because it puts an unbearable burden upon his meagre capacity for taking in ideas. Thus his search is always for short cuts. All superstitions are such short cuts. Their aim is to make the unintelligible simple, and even obvious. So on what seem to be higher levels. No man who has not had a long and arduous education can understand even the most elementary concepts of modern pathology. But even a hind at the plough can grasp the theory of chiropractic in two lessons. Hence th evast popularity of .. quackeries. They are idiotic but they are simple - and evey man prefers what he can understand to what puzzles and dismays him.

The popularity of fundamentalism among the inferior orders of men is explicable in exactly the same way. The cosmogonies that educated men toy with are all inordinately complex. To comprehend their veriest outlines requires an immense stock of knowledge, and a habit of thought. It would be as vain to try to teach to peasants or the city proletariat as it would be to try to teach them to streptococci.

But the cosmonogy of Genesis is so simple that even a yokel can grasp it. It is set forth in a few phrases. It offers, to an ignorant man, the irresistible reasonableness of the nonsensical. So he accepts it with loud hosannas, and has one more excuse for hating his betters.`

Mencken was an unashamed snob, but his assumption that truth is beyond the comprehension of all but a small elite overlooks the indisputible fact that a partiality to bunkum is not confined to the `lower orders` - unless you are to include GW Bush - and the guy who asked this question.

Answer 9

so then the only possible explanation must be CREATION...Right?

Ok, then. But I'm having a difficult time determining which creationist story to believe. I have it narrowed down to the list below. Can you provide me with the evidence that proves which creation story is the REAL creation story?

My List of Creationists:

1. Christianity
2. Islam
3. Hindu
4. The GREAT Eagle "spirit" (worshiped my native americans).
5. Raliens (the people that believe space aliens genetically engineered humans...who also believe the bible but "interpret" it differently than christians)
6. Church of the Flying spaghetti monster
7. Ancient followers of Ra, the sun god.
8. Scientology (XENU).

.....should i keep going?

Answer 10

Wow your really not understanding it are you?
First the suggestion that the universe came from nothing is not true. It began as a singularity. And at first there was just energy, no matter just energy.
It took a lot of cooling and several generations of stars to create the heavier elements.
Second. There are organic molecules all over the universe. These are the precursers for live. How that live first started is not a question evolution attempts to answer. Evolution attempts to predict and explain how live evolved not how it started.

Answer 11

It's not nearly as simplistic as you're trying to make it out to be -- pour X, Y, and Z into the beaker, wait five minutes, and Creature A slithers out. You have to remember: there are BILLIONS of galaxies, each with BILLIONS of stars with planets orbiting them, and those potentially life-creating chemicals have been bumping into and interacting with one another for 13+ BILLION years.

One might think that winning the lottery is an incredibly unlikely event -- and it would be, if the odds were a billion to one, and only one ticket was sold. And if you WERE that person who bought the only ticket and you won, you'd think it was some sort of a miracle or that "it was meant to be". But if there are MILLIONS of people buying tickets, and the drawings are being been held every week, you'd be more surprised if someone DIDN'T eventually win it.

That's the trouble most theists have when trying to wrap their minds around abiogenesis -- they're not paying attention to the sheer SCOPE of the universe. Subconsciously, they're still clinging to their small, flat little earth that's only been around for 6,000 years, with the stars just twinkly little lights mounted to the dome of sky covering it, and their small little god watching over it. To borrow from Shakespeare, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."