"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 ."
"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"