Hey I don't mind a good dive into the mysteries of the universe. Ancient Aliens is one of my favorite shows. Also don't doubt any of your personal experience.
But just as 2+2 does not equal 5. There is nothing scientific about the theory being taught to explain the existence of extremely complexes life. It doesn't even explain simple life for that matter.
The only 'evolution' that is scientifically sound is what we used to simply call adaptation.
So if you must have a creator, I don't see any reason to limit the creator's creative powers by inserting a completely illogical and unscientific process.
or... evolution could be an integral part of the creator's plan. A planet is born, single-cell life erupts, becomes more complex, eventually you get a dominant bipedal species which becomes sentient and eventually spacefaring. Some of those sentients develop from hominid mammals, some from other types of mammals, others from reptiles, others from avian species? You get the idea? It explains a lot of things and makes sense. Even beyond THIS phase of existence there is allegedly "ascension" to be experienced. Constant growth from day one.
So much of what people call "science" is just fiction. Your hypothesis doesn't explain anything that needs explaining as far as I can tell, unless you're explaining a plot for a star trek episode.
I'm not trying to trample on anyone's beliefs. What you say sounds fun to talk about but it's just not necessary in any scientific inquiry.
But to your question - no, in reality, if no evidence supports the theory of evolution, then there is no reason to claim the creator used it. The mechanisms do not exist.
It's like even though you are capable of forming complete sentences, you simply created a pencil and let the wind take care of the rest. No point in it. Especially if you already wrote a whole book demonstrating your vast abilities.
Hey I don't mind a good dive into the mysteries of the universe. Ancient Aliens is one of my favorite shows. Also don't doubt any of your personal experience.
But just as 2+2 does not equal 5. There is nothing scientific about the theory being taught to explain the existence of extremely complexes life. It doesn't even explain simple life for that matter.
The only 'evolution' that is scientifically sound is what we used to simply call adaptation.
So if you must have a creator, I don't see any reason to limit the creator's creative powers by inserting a completely illogical and unscientific process.
or... evolution could be an integral part of the creator's plan. A planet is born, single-cell life erupts, becomes more complex, eventually you get a dominant bipedal species which becomes sentient and eventually spacefaring. Some of those sentients develop from hominid mammals, some from other types of mammals, others from reptiles, others from avian species? You get the idea? It explains a lot of things and makes sense. Even beyond THIS phase of existence there is allegedly "ascension" to be experienced. Constant growth from day one.
So much of what people call "science" is just fiction. Your hypothesis doesn't explain anything that needs explaining as far as I can tell, unless you're explaining a plot for a star trek episode.
I'm not trying to trample on anyone's beliefs. What you say sounds fun to talk about but it's just not necessary in any scientific inquiry.
But to your question - no, in reality, if no evidence supports the theory of evolution, then there is no reason to claim the creator used it. The mechanisms do not exist.
It's like even though you are capable of forming complete sentences, you simply created a pencil and let the wind take care of the rest. No point in it. Especially if you already wrote a whole book demonstrating your vast abilities.