Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[sayak83]

Will yours be falsified when they don't?

I asked the question first.
But yes, if after looking carefully at the few neighboring galaxies, life is not found in any of them, my beliefs will be falsified.

 

[Sapiens]

Will yours be falsified when they don't?

No, it is impossible to prove a negative. It's like trying to prove that your god does not exist, there's always another place to look, it is impossible to peek over every hill and under every rock.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You questioned whether I lied about being good at art!

You need to work on your reading comprehension if you think that is what I said.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Anyone can call themselves an artist, blah, blah, blah" I entered my artwork in a contest in eighth grade and won third place! In grade school, I was chosen to do artistic work on a bulletin board because of my skill! When I showed my art to school mates, it was so good they denied that it was my work! I brought my art to work, and a coworker insisted that I must have traced it, because it was so accurate! Once again, you are belittling claims that I have made, based on nothing, since you haven't seen my artwork; Just as when you called my ex husband a history wannabe (in so many words) without knowing him!

I've had some of my writings published, I've made drawings that have been used and featured here-and-there, and I recently added being featured in an art gallery exhibition to my resume.
Anyone can label themselves as an artist or call themselves an artist with no real objective measurement to prove or disprove them.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So, just to be clear. Your religion will be falsified when NASA finds life on these planets?

No, it wouldn't. It would only prove that another planet was being prepared for human caretakers and habitation. I mean, eventually, this planet will get too crowded, but that's centuries from now: with the deserts (like the Gobi, Sahara, Australia's interior, etc) 'blossoming as the saffron, and waters in the wilderness' (Isaiah 35:1), and, possibly, habitable land arising from the ocean. Maybe even developing technology (from Jehovah God, per Isaiah 54:13) to enable us to live safely and permanently under the seas! All that is speculation, though. We do know this: 1 Corinthians 2:9

But Earth will always have been the first, for humans. This is where the issues were raised (and will be settled), the trial venue for human independence from his Creator, Jehovah.

 

[Thumper]

Thumper,
I'm really glad that medical breakthroughs have given you a higher quality of life! (I wish it could for me.) I wish you the best.

But everything you've stated is basically a straw man. We have no qualm, accepting microevolution, which is what you're stating. No new organism morphed into existence.

And your statement, "directed evolution", simply the highlights the need for intelligence to be the source of new function.

You would need to provide evidence that there is a barrier to stop microevolution from proceeding into macroevolution.

The "directed evolution" which I speak of is our use of biological evolution to develop useful results.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are 4 gospels told from the perspectives of different people! Some have details that others don't! Jesus was born in a stable, because there was no room to put them up at the inn!

When looking for the wisdom of a god to direct your life, why would you want the perspective of any person, let alone four? Besides, using intermediaries reduces the reports to hearsay.

 

[sayak83]

No, it wouldn't. It would only prove that another planet was being prepared for human caretakers and habitation. I mean, eventually, this planet will get too crowded, but that's centuries from now: with the deserts (like the Gobi, Sahara, Australia's interior, etc) 'blossoming as the saffron, and waters in the wilderness' (Isaiah 35:1), and, possibly, habitable land arising from the ocean. Maybe even developing technology (from Jehovah God, per Isaiah 54:13) to enable us to live safely and permanently under the seas! All that is speculation, though. We do know this: 1 Corinthians 2:9

But Earth will always have been the first, for humans. This is where the issues were raised (and will be settled), the trial venue for human independence from his Creator, Jehovah.

Well, it refutes Deeje's arguments that earth is special among the all the planets in the universe. That part of the argument is gone.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I cannot comment on all of the details of Mary's discovery such as the bird/dino link! But defectors from the cult of evolution CAN!

I'm a defector from the cult of Christianity. Perhaps I can help you understand how the world appears when not viewed through the lenses of a faith based confirmation bias.

 

[Sapiens]

Why do you think I need credentials?

I rarely go looking for credentials until someone says something that flies in the face of what I know to be the commonly accepted meme in the field. Even then I will usually check out the meme first to see if it is solid, controversial or wack-a-doodle.

I had a nutritionist who gave me advice to take vitamins to help heal my bones! He had the credentials, but I followed his advice! I could also have found a quack who would advise me wrong!

That is a good example. You get some advice that seems amiss, clearly, "take 'vitamins,'" is crappy advise, there are many, many vitamins out there, most of which would obviously be a waste of time, but Vitamin C has been shown to be useful in bone healing. Taking supplements (which assumes that your diet is inadequate, and that's a whole 'nother issue) may make sense with the focus on zinc, calcium, and magnesium. But what about Vitamin D you say, doesn't it "build strong bones"? So you look for an expert.

There's an "expert" on the web who calls himself Dr. Axe (Dr. Josh Axe, DNM, DC, CNS, a certified doctor of natural medicine, doctor of chiropractic and clinical nutritionist) who has credentials, but not the standard ones (M.D. or Ph.D.) I look at his website and I am suspicious, too many celebrity photos and flogging of ancillary products. So I look deeper, he went to Palmer College which teaches (what I consider to be) a bizarre belief system that, "only the atlas could misaligned itself, or cause misalignment below that point, thus putting pressure on the spinal cord or spinal nerves and causing disease." Other schools teach that alignment of the entire spine is important and conventional medicine suggests that no amount of atlas or spinal manipulation will cure cancer or measles.

Stephen Barrett, M.D. notes, "The Certification Board for Nutritional Specialists (CNNS) was founded by the American College of Nutrition (ACN) in 1993. It originally offered a Certified Nutrition Specialist (CNS) credential only to professionals with an accredited master's or doctoral degree who have clinical experience and pass an examination. In 2009, it severed its connection with ACN and became an independent nonprofit organization. In 2010, it opened its certification process to people with a degree in medicine, dentistry, chiropractic, naturopathy, and several other health disciplines. CBNS's certification requirements remain substantial but less than those of the American Board of Physician Nutrition Specialists.. In addition, it is not clear how rigorously they investigate their applicants. Many CNS holders have distinguished nutrition credentials. However, I know of at least two people who became certified even though their "Ph.D" degrees came from a nonaccredited correspondence school."

So, in Axe's case his credentials comes down to a question the where his Ph.D. came from. He does not say where his degrees are from and the organization that issued his DNM (Board of Natural Medicine Doctors and Practitioners-North America) has rather indeterminate requirements. This is not proof, but is (to me at least) highly suspicious. Kinda like the Senator Ron Paul who, failing to obtain Board Certification from
the American Board of Ophthalmology — the only recognized body that certifies doctors in his specialty, start up the National Board of Ophthalmology, and now styles himself as being, "Board Certified." As the Courier-Journal explains, the American Board of Ophthalmology, which maintains a fully staffed headquarters in Philadelphia, has existed for roughly a century and currently lists about 16,000 doctors on its rolls. The National Board of Ophthalmology has existed since 1999, when Paul “founded” it, lists no more than seven doctors, and its address is a post-office box in Bowling Green, Ky. He had claimed to be certified by both boards, but Courier-Journal reporter Joseph Gerth quickly discovered that claim was false. (thanks to Salon).

I am a skeptic by nature, so in the absence of specific information, and in the face of the rather unusual oversight of not including the origin of his highest claimed degree, and considering Dr, Barrett's advice: "Because the titles 'nutritionist' and 'nutrition consultant' are unregulated in most states, they have been adopted by many individuals who lack recognized credentials and are unqualified. In addition, a small percentage of licensed practitioners are engaged in unscientific nutrition practices. The best way to avoid bad nutrition advice is to identify and avoid those who give it. I recommend steering clear of all practitioners—licensed or not—who sells vitamins in their offices. Scientific nutritionists do not sell vitamins. Unscientific practitioners often do—usually at a considerable profit.", I put Axe into my quackbox and continue my search for a better documented and behaved authority.

I did not go into this looking for credentials, but various things about Axe stuck me as wrong, and so I was moved to look for and then investigate his credentials. Similar, the views you express contradict the commonly accepted meme in biology and are usually advanced by crackpots. charlatans, or people lacking specific education in the evolutionary biology. So I assume that you are in the latter category and I inquire as to your credentials to validate my assumption.

If instead of saying "macroevolution doesn't exist" I said "Macroevolution does exist" would you demand that I produce "credentials, background, and evidence!

No I would not since you are not taking a fringe position that seen falsified many, many, times.

This is how it goes: There are credentialed people who teach that evolution is true, and credentialed people who teach it isn't!

I know of very, very few people who have any formal training in evolutionary biology who thing that macroevolution (in your ill-defined terms) does not exit.

The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987, representing about 0.146%.

Therefore if you were interacting with award winning scientist Frantisek Vyskocil, and asked him for background and credentials, he would supply them!

Vyskocil has no training or credentials in evolutionary biology, none! He is a leading expert in electrophysiology and biochemistry of nerve-muscle contacts and synapses in the brain. Asking his opinion on evolution is akin to asking an expert on tires and traction why your car 's engine is running rough.

Now lets take this a little further! We have established that there are credentialed people on both sides of the issue!

No we have not. But ... for the sake of the discussion, I will grant that you maybe able to find some passing small number of well credentialed evolutionary biologists who agree with your stance on macroevolution. Let me grant you 100 such individuals. They would still remain a fringe group that is shrinking at every moment, currently the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.

I need to point out, at this juncture, that opening a question for a vote of qualified experts a valid thing to do. It is NOT an argument from authority which is only the case when authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.

Now we have the rest of us, the uncredentialed! We also either believe evolution or don't! We hear the arguments of both sides, and pick one to go with! So if you are one of those who has the "badge" of being credentialed, it would be a mistake to compare yourself with me and pooh pooh my position!

And why is that?

Because that would give Frantisek V the right to talk to an evolution believer who lacked credentials and razz him!

No, that is not the case. Dear Frantisek is an acknowledged expert in neuro-physiology. His "credentials" when it comes to evolutionary biology are about as meaningful as his drivers license. Soliciting his opinion in a field he has no qualification for is a perfect example of the previously mentioned logical fallacy of an argument from authority.

Here is what I can do! I can point out basic truisms and point out faulty arguments! For instance Dawkins or one of those guys, said something like "No real scientist disbelieves evolution" It is certainly within my abilities to point out that this is a sweeping generalization! Anyone with the right degree is a scientist, and he can not declare them "fake scientists" If true experts were only the ones who agreed with the prevailing ideas, sayings like "Three out of four dentists choose Crest" would have to disappear! Because the fourth dentist could not be one! He dissented!

Dawkins was, perhaps, overstating the case in a rather minor way since well over 96% of all scientists support evolution and (in scientific terms) a probability of 0.95 is how we determine "truth." If you want to play the game that way I must point out that according to the Pew Foundation 8% of Jehovah's Witnesses, the least likely group of people to accept evolution, accept it.

As far as my background and evidence, it is 50 years of life, a lot of personal experience, dabbling around, listening and reading, weighing things people say to me and pondering things! And I have presented some evidence already in this forum, feel free to go back and read what I have already written about the peppered moth, bacteria, finches, etc! Of course you would not agree that is evidence, your problem, not mine!

No, it is not my problem, it is yours. I really do not care what you believe as long as you believe it in private. When you go public with it, it is incumbent on you to provide evidence. When you go public witih a fringe view that contradicts the commonly accepted meme in the field you subject yourself to Sagan's Rule: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

[shunyadragon]

No, only as you wish to see it.....through rose-colored glasses.

You will need rose-colored glasses if you believe intelligent design has falsified theories or hypothesis.

Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design | Center for Science and Culture.

They do not present hypothesis that can be falsified.

 

[Deeje]

Well, it refutes Deeje's arguments that earth is special among the all the planets in the universe. That part of the argument is gone.

Actually Hockeycowboy revealed how you are mistaken. The earth is special, if this is the starting point in populating the universe. The founding place of civilisations is noted in history books, so even humans think they are "special".

We are not told what God's future plans are, but we know that he creates with purpose, so the vastness of the universe with its billions of galaxies will not have been without purpose. Short sighted humans stuck with a presently finite existence, cannot possibly foresee what the Creator has in store for the infinite future. We see the possibilities of that future through the prophesies in the Bible, but thankfully they are not dependent upon the actions and attitudes of greedy humans.

 

[sayak83]

Actually Hockeycowboy revealed how you are mistaken. The earth is special, if this is the starting point in populating the universe. The founding place of civilisations is noted in history books, so even humans think they are "special".

We are not told what God's future plans are, but we know that he creates with purpose, so the vastness of the universe with its billions of galaxies will not have been without purpose. Short sighted humans stuck with a presently finite existence, cannot possibly foresee what the Creator has in store for the infinite future. We see the possibilities of that future through the prophesies in the Bible, but thankfully they are not dependent upon the actions and attitudes of greedy humans.

The physical features you quoted for earth that makes it hospitable for life appears now to be present in many many other planets, making earth just another life-conducive planet among trillions
There may be more Earth-like planets than grains of sand on all our beaches
Of course earth will be special in a subjective sense because our species arose here, but this is in the same way as my parents will be special because I was born of them. Nothing that requires any explanation from physics. Moving on...

 

[Sapiens]

I'm sorry,...what? She earned a BS in Communicative Disorders and studied under Little Jack Horner?

Oh please...you're killing me!

Joke's on you once again revealing your ignorance:

John R. "Jack" Horner (born June 15, 1946) is an American paleontologist who discovered and named Maiasaura, providing the first clear evidence that some dinosaurs cared for their young. He is one of the best-known paleontologists in the World. In addition to his many paleontological discoveries, Horner served as the technical advisor for all of the Jurassic Park films, had a cameo appearance in Jurassic World, and even served as partial inspiration for one of the lead characters, Dr. Alan Grant.

The bearded paleontologist Dr. Robert Burke, who is eaten by a Tyrannosaurus rex in Steven Spielberg's film The Lost World: Jurassic Park, is an affectionate caricature of Bakker. In real life, Bakker has argued for a predatory T. rex, while Bakker's rival paleontologist Jack Horner views it as primarily a scavenger. According to Horner, Spielberg wrote the character of Burke and had him killed by the T. rex as a favor for Horner. After the film came out, Bakker recognized himself in Burke, loved the caricature, and actually sent Horner a message saying, "See, I told you T. rex was a hunter!"
(WIKI)

Additionally, Horner started collecting dinosaur bones at age 8; he was a Green Beret during the Vietnam War; he has received many high academic honors including the he was also awarded the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship (often called the Genius Grant).

The MacArthur Fellows Program, MacArthur Fellowship, or "Genius Grant", is a prize awarded annually by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation typically to between 20 and 30 individuals, working in any field, who have shown "extraordinary originality and dedication in their creative pursuits and a marked capacity for self-direction" and are citizens or residents of the United States. It carries with it a sum of half a million dollars and is never shared, so it is often worth more than a Noble, which in science is more often than not shared.

... and all you can do is make fun of his name, something he had no control over? You show real class.

BTW, speaker of Bakker: He' s a Pentecostal, Ecumenical Christian minister, Bakker has said there is no real conflict between religion and science, and that evolution of species and geologic history is compatible with religious belief. Bakker views the Bible as an ethical and moral guide, rather than a literal timetable of events in the history of life. He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.
(WIKI)

 

[Deeje]

Actually you are partially correct. Neither micro evolution nor macro evolution exist separately. There is simply the science of evolution. Micro evolution is simply descriptive observations of evolution on a small scale.

Science cannot prove that there is a scale. That is an assumption. Science morphs one into the other as a 'given', when you have no actual evidence to prove that what you assume is true. Micro-evolution is "adaptation". Macro-evolution is adaptive change taken to extreme lengths with nothing to back it up but imagination. You have speculation about what "might have" or "could have" taken place, but there is not a shred of actual proof that what you assume ever took place. All of your back up is also imagined. DNA, embryology, etc....nothing in any of it is conclusive....it is assumptive. Do scientists hope that no one will notice? If you pretend it is fact, then everyone will assume that it is. I don't believe it, however, you are free to believe whatever you like.

Science is the 'religion' of academia apparently. Its scholars are looked to as 'prophets' whose 'predictions' come true when they interpret their 'evidence' to fit their theory. Their disciples stream into their 'temples' of higher learning, hanging off their every word. It's like worship...and any criticism is viewed as blasphemy!

"Credentials" become the identification mark of an academic leader, much like the titles "Archbishop" or "The Most Reverend" do in Christendom. If the ones who educated you are flawed in their hypothesis to begin with, and everything they build on that hypothesis to turn it into a theory cannot be falsified, it is because it is judged by the criteria they themselves have set.....it becomes rather more farcical than religion's claims of an Intelligent Creator IMO.

 

[Deeje]

Joke's on you once again revealing your ignorance......
and all you can do is make fun of his name, something he had no control over? You show real class.

Oh dear....someone needs to lighten up methinks.

It was a joke.

Notice how when your idols are taken down off their pedestals, it elicits an incredibly defensive response

.....yet when evolutionists insultingly relegate the Creator to the realms of myth or fantasy, we are supposed to drop at your feet and grovel. Your pedestal is not my pedestal. OK?

My God is better than your god......

.......that is what this thread has become, yet neither of us can prove "scientifically" (with actual hard evidence) that what we believe is true.

Additionally, Horner started collecting dinosaur bones at age 8; he was a Green Beret during the Vietnam War; he has received many high academic honors including the he was also awarded the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship (often called the Genius Grant).

I wonder if the Creator would judge him as a genius? And being a "Green Beret" during the Vietnam War means what exactly in this conversation?

Being intelligent and having high academic honors with an IQ in the genius category doesn't make everything you say correct. Geniuses often lack common sense and can generally exhibit some bizarre eccentricities, yet no one seems to mind......anyone who supports ID cannot exhibit any characteristic that can be criticized. Funny that.

BTW, speaker of Bakker: He' s a Pentecostal, Ecumenical Christian minister, Bakker has said there is no real conflict between religion and science, and that evolution of species and geologic history is compatible with religious belief. Bakker views the Bible as an ethical and moral guide, rather than a literal timetable of events in the history of life. He has advised non-believers and creationists to read the views put forward by Saint Augustine, who argued against a literal understanding of the Book of Genesis.
(WIKI)

Is this supposed to mean anything to me? Anyone who sees "no real conflict between religion and science" has sold out to the opposition IMO.....and I believe that they will 'reap what they have sown'. Either the Creator gets full credit or he gets none at all. There is no middle ground.

I reject Christendom's teachers just as much as I reject the teachers of evolutionary science, which BTW seems to demand less of itself by way of actual evidence than most other branches of science.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Anyone can call themselves an artist, blah, blah, blah" I entered my artwork in a contest in eighth grade and won third place! In grade school, I was chosen to do artistic work on a bulletin board because of my skill! When I showed my art to school mates, it was so good they denied that it was my work! I brought my art to work, and a coworker insisted that I must have traced it, because it was so accurate! Once again, you are belittling claims that I have made, based on nothing, since you haven't seen my artwork; Just as when you called my ex husband a history wannabe (in so many words) without knowing him!

I guess another way of putting it is that being recorded in albums, having pictures of my pictures taken, drawing characters for organization publishings, having stuff appear in books, having it heard in a documentary, having others view it in a gallery or hear it in an auditorium, none of that makes me an artist. That I sketched a couple pictures yesterday and played my guitar before getting on this website, that makes me an artist. And while granted the glass pipe I drew required some practice to get the reflections, the other drawing was of a very crude skull, was made to look simple, crude and easily recognizable for a project someone came to me with, and honestly a five year old could have drawn it. But both are good, and the one that required no real skill or talent is off to become a part of another world. The stuff I was playing on guitar was very simple, easy, beginner stuff anyone can do, but with some practice a "weekend lesson" can be transformed into something amazing. Saying "anyone can be an artist" doesn't demean art or artist, it's a factual statement that anyone can be an artist, with dedication and practice being the only real requirements.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science cannot prove that there is a scale. That is an assumption. Science morphs one into the other as a 'given',

False, nothing in science is a given, unfortunately the fundamentalist view of Creation is a 'given' without evidence, based on ancient mythology.

when you have no actual evidence to prove that what you assume is true.

Again nothing is 'proven' in science, and the fundamentalist Creationist views cannot be falsified in science, because essentially they are trying to prove the negative, based on ancient mythology and folk tales.

Micro-evolution is "adaptation". Macro-evolution is adaptive change . . .

True of evolution which cannot be differentiated from micro-evolution by the evidence. I gave clear citations of recent evolution that goes beyond the artificial contrived view of the fundamentalist agenda

<snip> foolish diatribe.

 

[Sapiens]

Oh dear....someone needs to lighten up methinks.

It was a joke.

It was not funny, it was childish.

Notice how when your idols are taken down off their pedestals, it elicits an incredibly defensive response

.....

I do not have idols, I side with the Jews on that one. I have colleagues and I despise muggings.

yet when evolutionists insultingly relegate the Creator to the realms of myth or fantasy, we are supposed to drop at your feet and grovel. Your pedestal is not my pedestal. OK?

I don't recall ever asking for that, but now that you mention it, that might be nice, especially if coupled to a heart felt apology.

My God is better than your god......

.......that is what this thread has become, yet neither of us can prove "scientifically" (with actual hard evidence) that what we believe is true.

Since neither of us actually has a god outside of our cerebral imaginator, that is truly passing silly.

I wonder if the Creator would judge him as a genius?

What "creator" would that be? If you mean your invisible friend, I suspect that Horner might not be appreciated by the Deeje behind the curtain ... Dorthy, pay no attention to the Deeje behind the curtain.

And being a "Green Beret" during the Vietnam War means what exactly in this conversation?

They were the smartest soldiers that I met working in Vietnam.

Being intelligent and having high academic honors with an IQ in the genius category doesn't make everything you say correct. Geniuses often lack common sense and can generally exhibit some bizarre eccentricities, yet no one seems to mind......anyone who supports ID cannot exhibit any characteristic that can be criticized. Funny that.

No, not everything you say, but inside your field ... highly probable tht you are spot on.

And harking back to your previous question, I never met a Special Fores guy who'd been in country for more than a month who did not have plenty of "common sense." But then you wouldn't know jack about that, would you?

Is this supposed to mean anything to me? Anyone who sees "no real conflict between religion and science" has sold out to the opposition IMO.....and I believe that they will 'reap what they have sown'. Either the Creator gets full credit or he gets none at all. There is no middle ground.

Then let's give the fairy tale no credit. The point there was that we have a diversity of opinions among the "evolutionists," Bob's a committed Christian, Ken Miller is a devout Catholic, Dawkins and I are both "6.9" Atheists, yet we all respect each other, are able to communicate easily, work together when needed and, in some cases, socialize easily, despite our differences. What is it about you that makes this impossible?

I reject Christendom's teachers just as much as I reject the teachers of evolutionary science, which BTW seems to demand less of itself by way o f actual evidence than most other branches of science.

Ah ... that must be it. You are equally judgmental and acerbic toward people who know way more about religion than you do as well as people who know way more science than you do. I've know some ego maniacs in my time, but never who thought that they were brighter than St. Augustine and Einstein rolled into one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science cannot prove that there is a scale. That is an assumption. Science morphs one into the other as a 'given', when you have no actual evidence to prove that what you assume is true.

There are only two possible explanations for what we see in the fossil record:

1) Every living thing evolved from a shared common ancestor through a process of reproduction with variation and natural selection (both of which have been observed to occur).

2) Every species found in the fossil record appeared separately and spontaneously out of nowhere for no reason whatsoever, before shortly thereafter going extinct for no particular reason, and then a subsequent species that also appeared separately and spontaneously out of nowhere for no reason and also happened to coincidentally seem nearly identical in morphology to the prior species despite them sharing no ancestry appeared and then also went extinct, and that this exact chain of events happened millions of times over for practically every species we have uncovered in the fossil record but then suddenly it stopped when it reached the modern human age for no reason whatsoever and was replaced by a system of observable change over time through reproduction with variation and natural selection for no reason whatsoever.

Take your pick.

Micro-evolution is "adaptation".

So is macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution is adaptive change taken to extreme lengths with nothing to back it up but imagination.

Actually, it is defined as evolution above the species level. Which we have observed multiple times.

You have speculation about what "might have" or "could have" taken place, but there is not a shred of actual proof that what you assume ever took place.

I refer you to the fossil record argument above. If you don't believe macro-evolution took place, then you MUST believe that species can magically appear, full formed, out of thin air, and have done this on a regular basis since the dawn of life on this planet, despite the fact that "contemporary species popping into existence from nothing" has never been recorded. The only reasonable explanation for what we see in life today and in the fossil record, taking account of all the available facts we have, is the theory of evolution and common ancestry.

If you don't believe it, tough. Reality doesn't have to warp itself to your incredulity.

The rest of your post is conspiratorial rambling and not worth responding to.