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.
Thank you for the information but it seems to be only the babble and useless thought of a immature person with less ability than a four year old or a opinionest incapable of knowledge. I hope it is not a opinion thought by yourself. The author seems not to know the definition of scientific theory or evolution. Also he seems to think there are several evolution theories when only one has been observed (ongoing change occurs). He also lacks the mental aptitude to construct a simple mathematical equation. Its possible he may think 2+2=22. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to confuse and mire evolution with some vague opinion of the origin of the universe so one might conclude it is the rant of a opinionest although there is not much difference in the lack of knowledge of one less than four and a opinionest. One might also think that from the tone of the article the author might have a intense hate of evolution or change, will deny under any circumstances that change occurs and is one of the few that still thinks himself a clone.
That one might properly review the above a definition of opinionest is needed. A opinionest seeks agenda or imposition of opinion (irrational or illogical thought and useless babble) by lack of knowledge, untruths, redefinition, accusation, name calling, any other vile act and in the end when frustrated violence. The agenda of a opinionest is thought to be the most vile and in opposition of all that is ethical.
To further clarify one needs the definition of evolution that is most accepted. It is simply: "In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. Since the development of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles in a population from one generation to the next. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time". On a further note I would include that Darwin did not use the term evolution but the terms change and difference. Evolution is a later term that includes both. Darwin simply proposed that change and difference occurs and is ongoing whether by reproduction or nature and included evidence of change and differences.
One might propose a simple observation for the author that is neither too complex or complicated for his understanding if such a thing is possible. First the observation that of 6.7 billion people on earth no two have been observed to be exactly the same and all have some difference or change by reproduction or nature. However there are still a few of creation that deny by opinion that change or difference has occurred and opine that they and all others are clones.
A second observation may be needed. One would encourage you to get the author, pictures of his ancestors and stand in front of a mirror. If he can observe any difference or change, no matter how small some evolution has occurred. If by observation the author can say that there is no difference or no change, no matter how small then no evolution has occurred and and he and his ancestors are clones. If the observation is that no evolution has occurred one would not need the terms male or female for the male would be female and female would be male. A she would be a he and a he would be a she. All such terms would mean the same thing and in the future could be eliminated and one should refer to another or others as a clone or clones.
Please thank the author for the revelations of a clone and a clone's opinion.
500
"A second observation may be needed. One would encourage you to get the author, pictures of his ancestors and stand in front of a mirror. If he can observe any difference or change, no matter how small some evolution has occurred."
I strongly disagree. I'm not the author but I have a picture of my paternal great-great grandparents. There is a remote resemblance between them and myself. This is NOT evolution. The maternal side of my family must also be factored in as contributors to my DNA.
Most people have a set of 8 great-great grandparents but, because my grandparents were first cousins, I only have a set of 6. I have traced my lineage to Charlemagne and we still look the same...human!