How about the fact that Evolution and Anthropology aren’t the same thing, and Evolution is not where the timeline of the inventions you mentioned came from? If you are going to ridicule something, please make sure you are at least ridiculing the right thing. And Evolution does not generate folklore. Anthropology can study folklore, but it doesn’t generate it either.
There was not nearly enough time during the Cambrian explosion for even the necessary mutations to occur, let alone for natural selection to do its work.
The fact that evolution (aka the Modern Synthesis, Darwinism) is the “best scientific attempt to explain for the origin of species” doesn’t mean anything - it certainly doesn’t mean it’s the truth, or even that it’s a good theory … in fact, the “best scientific attempt to explain” something could be dead wrong.
Well, it’s certainly “well established”, but myths can also be “well established”.
. . . . Your belief regarding the origins life on earth and species certainly appears to be no different to that of an atheist - ie, abiogenesis and evolution are purely natural, unguided processes that are not the work of any god or gods and therefore have no purpose.
That’s true, however empirical evidence strongly suggests humans did not have rafts or boats 400,00 years ago:
More sense to you, or more sense to people who actually study and know the field (BTW, the field is still not evolution)?
It’s like we’re typing in Wingdings.
Or variously sized circles?
🕈︎Buzzard3:
It’s like we’re typing in Wingdings.
︎ ❍︎
︎
︎
︎⧫︎ 
︎⬧︎ ⬥︎︎●︎●︎ 
︎︎ 
︎□︎❒︎ ︎●︎●︎ ⧫︎︎︎ ︎□︎□︎
︎ ︎⧫︎
︎⬧︎ ︎□︎︎■︎︎ ◆︎⬧︎ ︎⌧︎
︎●︎︎︎■︎︎■︎︎ ⧫︎︎︎ ︎︎⬧︎︎
︎ ︎❖︎□︎●︎◆︎⧫︎︎□︎■︎ □︎︎ ︎◆︎❍︎︎■︎ ⬧︎□︎︎︎︎⧫︎⍓︎
︎Says who? Can science explain how God created the universe out of nothing?
Says who?
Says the definition of science. It’s the study of the natural world.
No, it cannot, just like it can’t explain miracles. Those are supernatural and outside its scope.
Says science. “I don’t know” is not how science works. There’s always a theory that explains why the phenomena happen, which is tested and compared with new evidence, then revised if needed. If you present new evidence, you revise the theory. Then, your new theory is tested against existing and new evidence.
I think you just crossed a line there, buddy. That deserves an apology.
If science can’t explain how God created the universe out of nothing or how God created the first life-form, then obviously science cannot explain nature.
How do you know the entire history of life on earth is not the result of a miracle?
No. Science can explain what we can measure and describe about nature. Just not what we cannot measure or describe. Like God, for example.
The progress of life on earth is so linear and oddly progressed that Creationism makes absolutely no logical sense.
What happened before the “creation of the universe” is simply outside the field of science. This is already a philosophy.
For the time being.
There is no problem to think that it was a miracle, but the evidence says otherwise, you just do not understand them. Christians, supporters of evolution, hold these views not because they can not believe in miracles, but because the facts tell the opposite (for example, you can read the believer Biologist Francis Collins).
Are you saying God was not responsible for the direction and progress of his creation?