"2 . Chemical evolution , explains ( or tries to anyway ) how life could arise from lifeless chemicals naturalsitically ."
"Nope . Chemical evolution has nothing to do with life . It has to do with changes that chemicals undergo when combined under certain conditions . The science of the origin of life is called abiogenesis . Life is a precondition of evolution . If you wish to claim that `` POOF - my god did it `` is the source of that life , then that does n't argue for or against evolution . [ quote ] 3 . Biological evolution , explains how a single-celled creature could evolve into the range of creatures we observe today by naturalistic means ( evidence for this : transitional forms - if I am wrong , then why is the transitional fossil argument still used by many evolutionists ? ) . [ /qote ] While you claim to be seeing the big picture , you actually have a very restricted idea of evolution . Evolution is a change in the frequencies of alleles in a population over time . Unless you can apply that to the big bang , changes in chemicals , and even the origin of life , you are not talking about evolution . You are trying to apply your misunderstanding the the science of biology . You are demanding that you should be able to define what biologists mean by the vocabulary they use ."
"how life could arise from lifeless chemicals naturalsitically ."
"You are trying to apply your misunderstanding the the science of biology ."