Evolution would rely on everything functioning naturally with completely natural cause with no interference or influence from an outside divinity.
actually, the ToE says nothing about the supernatural. it does not preclude the supernatural or include it.
Wow, is that an omnipotent selective entity controlling evolution? the very thing evolution denies existence?
you misunderstand natural selection. it is not omnipotent. heck, it isn't even "alive". and again, ToE does not deny the existence of the supernatural.
However, where did evolution get its energy in the first place without invoking supernatural interference?
take a look outside. see that massive yellow orb? you know, the thing that gives us daylight? heat? or go way down deep. check out the steam-vents in the ocean.
The basic postulate of Evolution is a "law" of increasing organization, which introduces new systems into higher systems. That’s what evolution proposes to do, develop lower things into higher things, disorganized things into organized things, simple things into complex things.
no. evolution = change in species over time. there is no "direction", in terms of becoming more complex or less so. just change.
Show when, what, and who. When was it observed? What was observed to evolve? Who observed the process?
I reccommend checking out
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
He changed them from laws of conservation into laws of disintegration.
you are, apparently, unaware of the laws of conservation of mass and energy. which are very important today.
Are you saying that the Evolutionary Model is based on the definitions that Creationists use?
he isn't. he is saying that it's nearly impossible to debate creationists because they tend to change their definitions or to use those that are not accepted (such as with information theory, shannon is what we use, creos love using dembski's, even though his is not right).
That’s alri.......WAIT! This story includes a supernatural being, how is that natural means? It most certainly is not natural.
you do understand metaphor and analogy, right?
Good, but how do you know that there are pixies in the vacuum chamber when the air is pumped out? Remember the pixies are invisible. Then, if the pixies are invisible, how do you know that they breathe oxygen, how do you know they breathe at all? This can't be shown by science because there is no way to observe the pixies at work. If this model was true, the experiment designed to "disprove" it would not be valid
nice try. not good enough. to figure out if there is something invisible breathing oxygen (or any other gas), you can create a sealed container. after an amount of time has passed, you can determine the levels of specific gases. if no life forms are in there (which you detected previously), and there is less O2 than to begin with, and the container is air-tight, and there is more, say CO2 than to start with, something must have converted it. this could be the "invisible fairy". now we have a way to test for the "fairies". see, it only takes some thought and a little bit of creativity.
we can now observe them. so now we can create a vacuum (empty of gases). after a while, any pixies would be dead or unconscious, and thus unable to push things down.
™ Version 4.2