Evolutionists? Two fundamental equations?

Question

Here are the two premises on which various theories of evolution are based.

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

No, you're not correct in stating the above. You're making a straw-man argument. You're saying, "These two things are evolution" when they are not. Evolution says nothing about how the universe came to be or how life itself STARTED. Evolution only considers what happens when life's begun. So it's pretty obvious you have no clue what you're talking about in the first place, and I'm too tired to really give a s*** to educate you. You've posted this same crap before and I've answered it before, so go f***ing read the perfectly logical answer you got the last time you asked.

Answer 2

Your first premise has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution. I don't know why the anti-science crowd keeps bringing up the creation of the universe. Biologists don't study this! Biological - I repeat - BIOLOGICAL evolution addresses changes that occur in already existing LIVING things, the first of which appeared millions of years after the universe came into being.

As for your second premise, you provided the atheistic version of the equation. The correct version of course is dirt + water + time + the hand of God = living creatures. Science cannot include God in the equation of course, because God is not within the purview of science; but most scientists recognize that God is an essential part of the equation. With God included in the equation, we have exactly what the Bible tells us - that God, in an unspecified period of time, by an unspecified process, formed the biological body of man from dirt (well, the Bible calls it "the dust of the earth" - same thing, wouldn't you say?). And THEN gave the creature a spiritual nature, which again, science cannot say anything about. Science can deal only with the biological aspects of man's creation.

Answer 3

No, you're not correct. Your empty rhetoric and deception understates the size and complexity of the universe and the billions of years involved. Muddling the Big Bang in with evolution and calling them one theory is the ultimate deceit. It's easy to dismiss the study of nature and its thousands of findings when you turn to a simple formula, magic, but you don't test or question it, even when it fails to explain the world.

Answer 4

Evolution has nothing to say about the beginning of the universe. To use the term creation or making is incorrect as well.
Primitive molecules of life can be assembled by pretty simple means in a lab. All that is needed is to mix up a chemical soup and give it a few electrical shocks.
Try reading thishttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
and maybe you will be able to ask intelligent questions about evolution that honestly challenge us.

Answer 5

No. It seems that the problem is a lack of understanding of evolution on your part. Spend some time educating yourself.

Also, 'evolutionist' is an offensive, derisive neologism, that is attempting to compare evolutionary theory to other religious beliefs. The theory of evolution is built upon a vast amount of evidence from several fields of science, while religious beliefs are based only upon dogmatic texts.

Answer 6

Belief does not constitute a worship which is what you might mean rather than religion. We all use the act of religion to understand consistency, right? One does not go to religion, one goes to worship. Life without the idea that there is a better way would be dull so we have different views on purpose. Rejoice that we do.

Answer 7

You're way, way, way off. Neither of those equations is fundamental to anything, because they're nonsense. Your entire argument is based on your ignorance of the subject you're challenging.

Below is the wikipedia.org page on Evolution, which gives a pretty thorough synopsis and the External links are pretty robust. So try reading about something before you argue against it, and if you have an argument to make, try to base it on an actual statement about the subject.

Answer 8

hi 13 in the time of! Like Ms Lety, I too prefer to no longer touch The Earth. yet, how approximately all of us is unusual? thank you for the music Mr Manzarek, you gave me and greater than a number of others many smiles!!!

Answer 9

I think your formulas are vastly over simplified and wrong.

As to "scientific theories must be observable" - that would exclude anybody alive today from believing in George Washington, won't it?

:)

Answer 10

No, you are not correct. This is a gross oversimplification. Actually, it's not even that. It has nothing to do with evolution at all. Where did you get this? Certainly not any scientific thesis. Please provides links as I am actually quite curious as to the origin of this "idea."