>>One of the theories of evol. states that cosmic dust created by the BB
>
>No theory of evolution resides on the Big Bang. While it is a prevailing view that the Big Bang and evolution happened (and are continuing to happen as we speak) this prevailing view is not a theory.
>
>>carried all the material needed for evolution to occur. These dusts settled on earth and boom couple of million years later
>
>The "dust" didn't settle on Earth.
>
>The dust sat around in humoungus clouds until there was so much of it that it began to collapse in on itself due to the force of gravity.
>
>These were the first stars.
>
>The stars themselves did what the dust did, and grouped themselves into proto-galaxies and eventually galaxies.
>
>The stars are big nuclear reactors, taking hydrogen and creating other heavier elements. All the elements found on Earth from gold to oxygen were created in the center of a star.
>
>Some of these stars would blow up spreading this stuff everywhere. Its this star material that formed together to create a planet.
>
>>you got life giving "simple" molecules, such as RNA and DNA. Now, once RNA/DNA formed how did they survive long enough for the next mutation, which might not occur unit 10000 years down the road?
>
>On this planet there was this molecular soup. Nothing fancy like RNA or DNA yet, just plain jane molecules.
>
>With the right environmental stimulus (say some electromagnetic charges in the air) new molecules would form.
>
>Now there is a sort of natural selection going on in this soup. The big molecules could usually knock apart the small ones, just due to their size. So the big moleculues are going to be the more prominent ones in the soup.
>
>But after millions of years of this, another kind of molecule is made. This one can actually make a copy of itself using other molecules.
>
>Its pretty easy to imagine that once this single self-replicating molecule existed, it wouldn't take long before its copies, and copies of its copies, were the prominent molecule type in the soup. Gaining faster and faster.
>
>Replication is a natural process, and doesn't occur perfectly (make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy and you'll see imperfections down the way). So some of these fancy models replicate with mutation.
>
>Usualy the mutation is a disadvantage to the molecule and the specimen dies out. Sometimes its helpful (and by helpful I only mean it improves the specimen's ability to replicate) and soon you'll see descendents of this guy taking over in the population.
>
>
>Now, that's a big story, from the creation of the Universe to you and I talking. But if one part of that story turns out to be wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean that every other part of the story is wrong.
>
>
>Think of it like you're writing software. You could design all your forms for your app. You could also design a form manager. Its possible to make changes to your forms without affecting the form manager, and vice versa.
>
>The same piece-wise, systematic approach you use in writing software more or less is the scientific method, only applied to problems we find in business and technology as opposed to the problems we find in nature.

Ok you put that very elegantly. But still no Big Bang, no stars and no evolution. Does it really matter how the particle got here?

And lot of assumptions and "religion" is required to believe all this happened because none of this is possible in a laboratory.