why d4 is better than e4

Under a rather strange definition of equal perhaps. Just like all the pieces are equal.

but the pieces are all of different heights, shapes, and functions ......

the squares just sit there  ..... watching ...... doing nothing .... all of them.

Mathematicians start with zero; there are sixty three squares, dur.

I rarely play 1.d4 or 1.Nf3. Almost all times I use 1.e4,1.c4 or 1.b3 and achieved great success with them except 1.c4(I may have used it only a few times more than 1.d4). I'm gonna practice sometime with 1.Nf3 as it allows a lot of transposition, more than 1.c4, especially in reversed openings.

i thought spanish, italian, and sicilian openings were pretty good for both sides but i guess i was wrong.

i know one thing, this is the wrong way to start a chess game with white.

There are multiple ways to play many positions.

Yes, that is true.

The first move doesnt force you to play in any particular way.

No, that is not true if the first move is a pawn move.  The first pawn move is the first building block of 1 of 6 characteristic pawn structures that the position on the board assumes from almost any opening.  Those 6 pawn structures dictate the plans of attack (strategies, and tactics) that can be used by either White or Black.  Yes,  you can play another strategy other than what the pawn structure dictates, but you do so at great risk of losing against a strong player with knowledge of how to play that pawn structure from both the White and Black side.

+1 that's very true. consistency is very important. you can't try for immediate attacks in the queen's gambit declined, for example, and you can't play slow positional chess in many lines of the sicilian

yeah too many people have annoying prep against 1.e4 which also implies that 1. c4 is good for that

For all of the folks who scream "1. e4!! is the best and everyone knows it," that is basically the point, don't play it, because everyone knows it.  I agree with 1. c4 as being strongest due to its transpositional power.  Against 1. e4 and 1.d4 though I go right out of the book, & play ...1. g5!! at 64% win clip; basically, nobody's seen it so they must start from scartch and despite it's atrocious look and feel, it works and is great fun and against the d4s because you're suddenly tactical, and against the e4s who think they are tactical, they ain't seen nothing 'till they've play the reversed Kolibri. 

I've played 1.e4 e5 2.Bb5 a few times. It's not so great against 1...c5 though... It's probably a little risky after 1...c6.

Alas, I've posted the merits of opening with 1. d4. Heh. But somehow my opinion seems miscontrued as, " better than 1. e4". Curious, because it's not my intention at all. I believe, truly, that playing 1. d4 is the start of one's evolution.

Maybe.  But consider that every time you switch from a sphere of knowledge where you've gained considerable experience to a new area that it's an evolution.

Yours may have happened to be e4 to d4 while another's may happen to be endgame theory to opening theory.

Hahhahh one of my good friend plays this reversed Grob ALWAYS (and normal Grob as well). I bet I would totally kick your ass!

Yes indeed. It's much more relevant against 1.e4 (which I usually play

http://www.suenafuerte.cl/diego-riedemann-cuarteto-shah-mat

Shell~middlegame to endgame is definitely not the same as evolving from 1. e4 to 1. d4. Think about it.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.  Both first moves can lead to almost anything.  Heavy theory or rarely played, open or closed, dynamic or static, classical or hypermodern.

e4 is not losing but, unlike d4, it's probably not winning.

Pretty bold to suggest chess is a win for white with best play.

1. d4!! (1-0).