Why should i believe in God?

[Rene]

Recently, I've come across an interesting video on Youtube, about someone 'simulating evolution'.

Might be worth watching.

[Wolf]

Well, as I said, I don't impose my views on anyone, but since we all are fighting, I thought I'd might as well point this out.

This is in direct response to SandChigger's assertion that he is not compelled to show respect to anyone possessing a religious belief, because it is a belief founded in the absence of evidence.

Consider for a moment that religionists are asserting, with varying conditions and provisos, that some god-like being (God) exists, and in most cases, several god-like beings exist. By god-like, I mean beings that fit the traditional definition of God; omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and providence. Atheists, on the other hand, are asserting that no such beings exist. Given an infinite universe, I think it's rather more likely that beings meeting some or all of these criteria have existed or may exist, then to say that, unequivocally, they do not, and cannot exist.

Now, for my part, I feel fairly comfortable in stating that omniscience and omnipresence are implied by omnipotence. Providence is a matter of whim to the god-like being. So, all I really have to do is provide some slight, no matter how minor, grounds for supposing that an omnipotent being might exist. To quote Arthur C. Clarke:

"Our Galaxy is now in the brief springtime of its life - a springtime made glorious by such brilliant blue-white stars as Vega and Sirius, and, on a more humble scale, our own Sun. Not until all these have flamed through their incandescent youth, in a few fleeting billions of years, will the real history of the universe begin.

It will be a history illuminated only by the reds and infareds of dully glowing stars that would be almost invisible to our eyes; yet the somber hues of that all- but-eternal universe may be full of color and beauty to whatever strange beings have adapted to it. They will know that before them lie, not the milions of years in which we measure the eras of geology, nor the billions of years which span the past lives of the stars, but years to be counted literally in trillions.

They will have time enough, in those endless aeons, to attempt all things, and to gather all knowledge. They will not be like gods, because no gods imagined by our minds have ever possessed the powers they will command. But for all that, they may envy us, basking in the bright afterglow of Creation; for we knew the universe when it was young." (Emphasis added, from Profiles of the Future)

Clarke was also famous for asserting the "apes or angels" theory, incidentally. Well, what's the point of all this? To be an atheist, one is asserting--without proof, and I think as I have demonstrated, perhaps even against prevailing scientific understandings of the universe--that the existence of god-like beings is impossible, or at the very least, that they do not exist. (How atheists would be expected to know this, I do not know.) Atheists often, gleefully, throw around the legal term "burden of proof" as if they know what it means, and as if it applied solely to those arguing for the existence of a god, God, or gods. Without going too deeply into it, it is not some clear-cut rule that always, and necessarily relieves one side from having to assert any evidence in their favor. Rather, it means that one side must ultimately show enough evidence in their favor to overcome the contravening evidence and theory provided by the other side. Since we are not "overcoming" anyone (like I said, no imposition), and this is not a court, then neither side necessarily has any specific burdens of proof. To preempt the tired objection: simply asserting that you cannot point to anything that you might be able to call "god" is not sufficient evidence to show that there is no god, God, or any number of like beings: were this a court, you would be asked to show what effort you put into determining that there was no God, in order to bolster your argument regarding the evidence-that-you-didn't-find. (I have often seen it boiled down effectively to saying, "there is no God, because there is no God.") It's debatable whether, in a legal sense, our highly-fictional court might find such efforts reasonable or not, and I think that's a discussion for another day. Another preemption: Clarence Darrow was an agnostic--he stopped just short of putting himself in a position he couldn't defend. In short, simply because you are arguing for the absence of an object or incident does not relieve you from the same or similar burden as he who is asserting a positive. And, given the broad terms that religionists are arguing in--by definition, their case contains a broader range of possible outcomes--I see no reason why, on purely rational grounds, atheism is any more justified than its theistic counterparts. Indeed, it is perhaps even a more dubious assertion, but what do I know? I'm new here.

(sigh) Anyway, this is not to say that people should be compelled to think any one way--however--it is to say that anyone who says that those who believe in the existence of god-like beings are stupid/backwards/unjustified-in-their-view, etc., is committing an ignorant, usually hypocritical, necessarily repugnant act reserved mainly for the uneducated and the vicious. By that same token, to say the same of one who does not believe in god-like beings is equally as vile.

[Edric O]

Wolf, I completely agree with your argument, but I feel obligated to nitpick a little:

Consider for a moment that religionists are asserting, with varying conditions and provisos, that some god-like being (God) exists, and in most cases, several god-like beings exist. By god-like, I mean beings that fit the traditional definition of God; omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and providence.

Polytheism is actually relatively rare today. The only major polytheistic religion in the world is Hinduism, and it is dwarfed in size by the two largest monotheistic religions, Christianity and Islam. The number of people who call themselves either Christians or Muslims, put together, is slightly over 50% of the world's population (which means that it is well over 50% of religious believers).

It's quite amazing, when you think about it. Over half of the people who believe in any god at all, believe in (some version of) the God of Abraham.

Also, going back to polytheism, most gods of polytheistic religions are not omnipotent, or omni-anything, really. They are just powerful entities of some kind or other. It would be very easy for sufficiently advanced aliens (since we're referencing Clarke... ;) ) to achieve the level of power and knowledge of most polytheistic gods.

Incidentally, I think the concept of One God (as in monotheism) is different enough from the concept of god (as in polytheism) that the English language really should have completely different words for "God" and "god". Maybe we should use "deity" for the polytheistic concept of god.

[Wolf]

Yes, I thought you might bring that up--with Christians and Muslims alone making up at least 50% of the human race--but I felt it necessary in order to be consistent with the rest of my argument. Angels are prevalent in many sects of Christianity and god-like powers are often ascribed to them, or at least some god-like conditions, and Mohammed & the preceeding prophets may be considered by some to fit some or all of the criterion for a "god-like being." Given how loose I was with the definition, I felt it necessary to make a point. But your point is well-taken: true polytheism is a rare thing in the year 2009.

[Edric O]

And another point to bolster your argument:

Speaking of aliens, there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of extra-terrestrial life (let alone extra-terrestrial intelligence). Yet many of the world's brightest and most respected scientists are on the record as saying that they believe extra-terrestrial life exists.

So, if we are to disrespect and ridicule people who believe things for which there is no evidence, shall we start with Carl Sagan?

[SandChigger]

Wow ... that's devastating. Game over! ::)

(Is this really as good as it gets here?)

Not that there is much to say in response, of course. I just find it amusing that you look down on those who believe things without hard evidence, yet the best thing you can say in favour of your own views is that they're "modern".

Is that really what I said? Interesting how it played a bit different in my head. Oh well, never mind, at least we're deriving a bit of amusement from our mutual condescension. :)

In other words, you think you are right just because your opinions have recently grown in popularity. Heh. Would it be better if we invented brand new superstitions, that people have not clung to for thousands of years - you know, to be more modern?

OK, so this is where we stand around and watch you slug it out with StrawChigger, right? ;)

Hmmm. I was going to say something more, but after previewing and reading your & Wolf's newer posts, I'm kinda wondering what the point would be....

When Carl Sagan said he <b>believed</b> in the existence of extra-terrestrial life, wasn't he saying that given the evidence and current theories, he believed in the potential for it, that the probability of the possibility was so high as to be almost certain? In other words, expressing a contingent belief=conclusion, dependent on future confirmation or falsification. Is that the same as someone saying they believe in some god? Isn't the latter equivalent to stating with certainty "My God exists!"? Did Carl Sagan <b>ever</b> say, "Alien life exists!"

I don't know. I do know that Carl Sagan never offered to contact any extraterrestrial life and put in a good word for me.

But maybe that's because I'm vile. ;D

[chatfsh]

Someone once observed that a greater percentage of physicists than biologists believe in god. They suggested, paraphrasing Alice in Wonderland, that biologists have to be somewhat practical, while physicists can believe six impossible things before breakfast.

For the moment, I will just deal with this point, simply because it amuses me to do so.

Ridiculing brilliant men of science who happen to disagree with your own belief system will do nothing to further your argument.  In fact, it does quite the opposite.  Nonetheless, this statement of yours caused me to ponder the matter and once again it became all too clear as to why a greater percentage of physicists believe in God.

One of the primary reasons is that many of them hold to the maxim,

[Edric O]

Hwi - I'm asking just out of curiosity - did you get those quotes from a webpage somewhere, or did you collect them yourself?

Naturally, the opinions of scientists (or anyone else, for that matter) cannot be used as an argument for the existence of God. That would be the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. But these opinions can be used to prove that religious or supernatural views are not confined to the ignorant, as some atheists like to claim. Quotes can't prove that God exists, but they can prove that the quoted people believe God exists.

Allow me to predict the atheist response to your argument: "Yes, it may be ridiculously improbable for the universe to be so perfectly tuned to allow our existence, but, given an infinite number of universes, even the most improbable things will happen eventually."

That is true. But there's a problem. This line of argument rests on the existence of universes other than our own... and there is absolutely no evidence that any such alternate universes exist. It's a belief in the supernatural (anything outside our universe is by definition supernatural), so it is no different from religion.

[Dante]

Congratulations, you can turn a minor dismissal into an entire post. Good to see that my advice about physics stuck though.

What it boils down to, is that the state of affairs in the universe is extraordinarily unlikely. But the hilarious thing is that were it any different, it would have been equally unlikely. And had it never come about, we would have no way of knowing. It's all very well throwing numbers at a problem, but probability means nothing without some measure of "the other side," that is, the chances of the universe forming may be X:1, but that's only useful with some idea of how many times it could have happened. Assuming a marksman shoots arrows from one side of the universe to another, sooner or later he'll hit that coin. Extraordinarily unlikely perhaps, but we have no idea of the time limit on his shooting.

Note how I didn't need to refer to other universes, or even anything outside this one.

You're quoting scientists out of context again, but since they're physicists I don't really care enough to look into what they really meant. They're just doing what scientists have always done: once they reach a question that they cannot answer, they turn to god. Just like people used to do with flowers and stars. It won't last. Einstein's opinions on the matter are well known, but then even Einstein didn't get everything right.

I admit, I don't much care for physics as a science. Spending all of your time contemplating things too big to see, too small to see, too old to see, too dark to see, things that can be represented by numbers and little else. Must do weird things to the head, working with all those intangible ideas.

But anyway, "men of science" who turn to intelligent design to explain something that they don't know yet have failed. They haven't reached a conclusion, they've reached a precipice that they can't see over. And for lack of anything better, they say it must be god. To hell with that, we know now that stars aren't dead heroes and we know that women don't metamorphose into pillars of salt. "God" is just another way of saying "I don't know," and one day we'll stop saying that.

[chatfsh]

Hwi - I'm asking just out of curiosity - did you get those quotes from a webpage somewhere, or did you collect them yourself?

Had I found them on a website and not in books, it would have spared me a whole lot of typing. :)  So to answer your question, they are quotes from books not from a website, though I suppose that if you checked you probably could find them on the web.  I

[SandChigger]

Congratulations, you can turn a minor dismissal into an entire post.

Whooeee! "God" grant me the fortitude to someday actually make it through one of those tomes! I guess people in these parts never heard that "brevity is the soul of wit."  :O

Recently, I've come across an interesting video on Youtube, about someone 'simulating evolution'.

Might be worth watching.

Thanks for posting that, Rene! I found it interesting.

From your description I at first thought it might be something about "artificial life", which is something I'm peripherally interested in. (There's been some work done simulating the development & evolution of communication systems & primitive languages using virtual critters. :D )

[Edric O]

(Is this really as good as it gets here?)

I guess you'll never know, since our wit unfortunately lacks a soul, and you lack the intellectual stamina to read through a post that suffers from a deficit of brevity. Maybe we should provide you with a more condensed version of the discussion, and then you'll be able to join in.

Hmmm. I was going to say something more, but after previewing and reading your & Wolf's newer posts, I'm kinda wondering what the point would be....

Come now, Chigger, you're going to deny us the pleasure of reading one of your fascinating one-line theological insights?

When Carl Sagan said he <b>believed</b> in the existence of extra-terrestrial life, wasn't he saying that given the evidence and current theories, he believed in the potential for it, that the probability of the possibility was so high as to be almost certain?

I doubt Carl Sagan would ever say anything so blatantly ridiculous. We have no way of knowing the probability of life arising elsewhere, because we are working with a sample size of 1. Sure, there may be billions upon billions of stars in the universe, but since we do not know the average probability of life evolving on a planet around a star, the immense number of stars out there gives us no useful information at all.

There are billions of grains of sand on Earth, but the probability of some of them spontaneously arranging themselves to spell out the word SERENDIPITY is still pretty low.

In other words, expressing a contingent belief=conclusion, dependent on future confirmation or falsification. Is that the same as someone saying they believe in some god?

Actually, saying "I believe aliens exist until someone proves otherwise" is exactly like saying "I believe my God exists until someone proves otherwise". Because, in both cases, no one could ever possibly prove otherwise.

It's all very well throwing numbers at a problem, but probability means nothing without some measure of "the other side," that is, the chances of the universe forming may be X:1, but that's only useful with some idea of how many times it could have happened. Assuming a marksman shoots arrows from one side of the universe to another, sooner or later he'll hit that coin. Extraordinarily unlikely perhaps, but we have no idea of the time limit on his shooting.

Note how I didn't need to refer to other universes, or even anything outside this one.

Yes you did. The act of shooting the arrow was the Big Bang. The only way the marksman could get more than one shot is if there was more than one Big Bang. And that implies multiple universes. Each universe is one shot.

I admit, I don't much care for physics as a science. Spending all of your time contemplating things too big to see, too small to see, too old to see, too dark to see, things that can be represented by numbers and little else. Must do weird things to the head, working with all those intangible ideas.

But I bet that doesn't stop you from enjoying the fruits of modern physics - like personal computers, for example. Or just about everything that runs on electricity, for that matter. Oh, and don't forget everything that uses electromagnetic waves to transmit information (from radio to the TV remote).

But anyway, "men of science" who turn to intelligent design to explain something that they don't know yet have failed. They haven't reached a conclusion, they've reached a precipice that they can't see over. And for lack of anything better, they say it must be god. To hell with that, we know now that stars aren't dead heroes and we know that women don't metamorphose into pillars of salt. "God" is just another way of saying "I don't know," and one day we'll stop saying that.

Really? That's odd. The way science normally works is that you observe something, you come up with several possible explanations for what you have seen, and you keep the one that seems to fit best with the facts - unless or until you find new facts that call it into question.

It's possible that you may stumble upon an observation which is best explained by a theory involving God. On what grounds would you reject such a theory? "I don't like it, come up with something different"? That's not how science works. When we have a gap, we must fill it with something. Whether it's God or String Theory, most scientific hypotheses are designed precisely for the purpose of filling gaps. Max Planck created Quantum Theory to fill the gap opened up by the problem of black-body radiation. Albert Einstein came up with the Special Theory of Relativity largely as an attempt to fill the gap left by the observation that light always seemed to travel at the same speed, regardless of the relative speed between the source and the observer.

I'm sorry, I understand you don't like physics, so I apologise if my examples went over your head.

[SandChigger]

I guess you'll never know, since our wit unfortunately lacks a soul, and you lack the intellectual stamina to read through a post that suffers from a deficit of brevity. Maybe we should provide you with a more condensed version of the discussion, and then you'll be able to join in.

Oh, my, yes, that <b>would</b> be lovely! Will it take long, do you think? ;D

(And it's not a lack of intellectual stamina so much as a general bovine feces intolerance. Would that condensed version have those impurities filtered out? Oh ... but then there wouldn't be much left, would there?)

Come now, Chigger, you're going to deny us the pleasure of reading one of your fascinating one-line theological insights?

Yes ... 'fraid so. Like yourself, I'm also feeling a bit bitchy this evening, so you'll just have to do without.

(It was pretty good, though

[Edric O]

Ah, I see I owe everyone an apology. I thought that giving the troll a little dose of his own behavior would prompt him to attempt to assert his superiority by actually engaging in serious discussion and making a rational argument. Some people with delusions of intellectual superiority will try to prove their intelligence through real debate when someone ridicules them or implies they are stupid. I was hoping SandChigger would react like that. I was wrong.

So, Chigger, since my attempt to get you to say something interesting failed, I will now ignore you. Oh well.

[Wolf]

Well, anyway, to continue with substantive discussion:

What I'm getting at with the whole "aliens" bit is that we too brutally and too simplistically apply the standards of evidence. Too many reasonable men, thinking reasonably about reasonable things believe in a higher power for such a belief to be directly analagous to, say, a belief in fairies for its lack of "evidence." However, evidence is not merely the physical manifestation of an act or an object. God need not slap me in the face for me to know that He exists. On the other hand, if I can construct a reasonable theory of belief for why God might exist, or for the conditions that might allow Him to exist, I think I've done my job. I have no idea how computers work, but that thought does not preclude me from sending this post virtually on the faith that it does work--and even then, that faith is not irrational given that I have a reasonable theory of belief for how my post might be sent. You might argue that, since I've sent hundreds of posts before, I have more than a reasonable theory of belief, but then what did the first poster have?

[Xaroth]

And another point to bolster your argument:

Speaking of aliens, there is not a single shred of evidence for the existence of extra-terrestrial life (let alone extra-terrestrial intelligence). Yet many of the world's brightest and most respected scientists are on the record as saying that they believe extra-terrestrial life exists.

So, if we are to disrespect and ridicule people who believe things for which there is no evidence, shall we start with Carl Sagan?

what would be even more ironic, if the 'supreme being' that goes under the name of God, is in fact, an extra-terrestrial life form.

[Wolf]

I don't think it would be that ironic, and chances are, something god-like out there exists. I've watched too much Star Trek: The Next Generation to think otherwise. And even then, some religions--Sikhism, for example--explicitly believe in a non-anthropomorphic God that acts, effectively, as the universe's own sense of self-awareness. But, to be fair, thinking along these lines doesn't really help us out that much when we move on to evaluating the actual premises of religion. Our conditions for God go a bit further than merely asserting that beings which are "god-like" exist. For instance, we have to contend with the notion of God being the creator of the universe--a state that would preclude any biological or technological evolution as we know it. Again, as we know it--it is truly impossible for us in our present state, or perhaps even in an advanced state, to determine what preceded the Big Bang. For all I know, anything could have happened.

[Dante]

Personally I subscribe to the theory that if something can happen once, it can happen again. That is why aliens are more likely than god, and why there is reasonable assumption for the existence of "other universes," though I would only carry it as far as the existence of other arrows in the marksman's quiver. Life and the universe, evidently, already exist. If they exist once, they can exist twice. And so on. God can't even be proven to exist once, and unlike physical calculations, cannot even be mathematically demonstrated to exist. Electrons can. Gravity can. God cannot. It's just the missing part of the equation, the blank space that nobody has worked out how to fill yet. That blank space used to be an awful lot bigger, before Newton and Einstein, and it's shrinking all the time.

And while I'm here, I stated myself that physics isn't my strong point. That in fact was the entire purpose of turning the argument in this direction: I can trounce most biological points, but physics is a little trickier. Pointing out what I have already pointed out, in a rather disparaging way no less, does not a good put-down make.

[SandChigger]

Ah, I see I owe everyone an apology. I thought that giving the troll a little dose of his own behavior would prompt him to attempt to assert his superiority by actually engaging in serious discussion and making a rational argument. Some people with delusions of intellectual superiority will try to prove their intelligence through real debate when someone ridicules them or implies they are stupid. I was hoping SandChigger would react like that. I was wrong.

So, Chigger, since my attempt to get you to say something interesting failed, I will now ignore you. Oh well.

Very well indeed. This has proven most enlightening. Much thanks to Tiberius for bumping this one. :)

[Tibeirus]

It's been a pleasure to find out how people react and think about this fact. You see, this question we ask oureselves is so complicated that only simplicity could work. Much nonsense and waste of time from those who participated. Conclusion:

Try to think simple (I gave some examples in the past replies on this topic) and the answer will come...

[Wolf]

Naturally, Dante, I disagree with that conclusion as you disagree with mine, but hesitate to move forward due to the overwhelming concern of appearing as if I would be attempting to impose my worldview on you. Suffice it to say that I do not see your point as following necessarily and logically, and, of course, that would be why I hold to my view and you yours.

[chatfsh]

As for transitional forms, they are there. There are fossils of whales with legs, lizards with feathers, hell, you don't even need to look at the fossil record to find transitional forms. Just look at book gills. Book lungs now, they're found in arachnids and been around for at least 410 million years. They evolved from book gills, found in horseshoe crabs for example, and work by almost the same mechanism, save using air instead of water. Why could book gills be considered a transitional form? Because they're just gills in a different shape. Gills > Book gills > Book lungs. Transitional forms aren't missing, they're just ridiculously difficult to pin down.

Imagine that colours are species. Red is a species, blue is a species, yellow is a species. They're all very distinct from each other. Then someone discovers purple. It's obviously different from any of the others. It has traits from both red and blue, so logically it could be a transitional form (though not necessarily, but I'll keep this simple). However, what do you do when you come across, say, lilac? It's almost blue, how do you know it's not just a mutated example of blue? Where do you draw the line? What you're supposed to draw from this example, pay attention now, is that species are not discrete. Just like colours, their edges blur. Evolution does not progress from plateau to plateau, with brief, rapid periods of development. The development period is neverending. That's why there are no "transitional forms," everything is a transitional form, constantly in motion.

These few cases that you recommend -- fossils of whales with legs, lizards with feathers and book gills are very poor examples of transitional forms.  Sorry, but I really expected something far more substantial from someone proclaiming this to be his territory.

I took the time to search for these alleged whale fossils with legs, because this I absolutely had to see.  Yet all I could find were fossils of four legged land dwelling animals and one fully aquatic animal, none of which bore even the slightest resemblance to a whale (frankly none of those species could seriously be claimed as a direct ancestor, or anything close to it, of the modern whale).  And most of the pictures were merely artists

[Dante]

These few cases that you recommend -- fossils of whales with legs, lizards with feathers and book gills are very poor examples of transitional forms.  Sorry, but I really expected something far more substantial from someone proclaiming this to be his territory.

...Seriously? What more do you want, exactly? Snakes with legs? Birds with teeth? The evolution of the jaw, the spine, the eye? I understand that you're coming at the subject from a profoundly ignorant point of view, but there is only so much a transitional form can show, you know? It's a snapshot: a single example of a great long chain. You can't fit all of the changes from a land-dwelling animal into a whale in a single organism. Not only would that be a lethal combination, it's also not how evolution works.

I took the time to search for these alleged whale fossils with legs, because this I absolutely had to see.  Yet all I could find were fossils of four legged land dwelling animals and one fully aquatic animal, none of which bore even the slightest resemblance to a whale (frankly none of those species could seriously be claimed as a direct ancestor, or anything close to it, of the modern whale).  And most of the pictures were merely artists

[Edric O]

Personally I subscribe to the theory that if something can happen once, it can happen again.

Based on what? I see no particular reason to believe that Event A is more likely to occur than Event B just because Event A occurred before, at some point in the past.

You were born once. It is ludicrously unlikely that another, identical copy of you will ever be born again.

That blank space used to be an awful lot bigger, before Newton and Einstein, and it's shrinking all the time.

Not really. Every time we fill out some part of it, we discover a new blank space somewhere else.

And while I'm here, I stated myself that physics isn't my strong point. That in fact was the entire purpose of turning the argument in this direction: I can trounce most biological points, but physics is a little trickier. Pointing out what I have already pointed out, in a rather disparaging way no less, does not a good put-down make.

Ah. It seemed to me that you were disparaging physics, so I came to its defense and replied in kind. Physics is not my field, but it is my favourite among the hard sciences. Actually, I think much more highly of physics than I do of my own field, economics. Economics is a clumsy, highly flawed and often subjective attempt to model some aspects of human behaviour using mathematics. Physics is a glimpse at the fundamental buildings blocks of reality. Thou shalt not speak ill of the mother of all natural sciences. :)

But if your point was merely that physics isn't your strong point, then I took it the wrong way, and I am sorry.

Enough with the empty rhetoric and weak reasoning, start providing plausible evidence of your assertions.  Evolutionists expect us to take it for granted that

[chatfsh]

I must object to this completely unwarranted use of the word. There is no single theory that explains the origin of the universe, life, and human intelligence. Rather, there are several, completely unrelated theories, belonging to completely different scientific disciplines. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (that last part of the name is very important, you know) explains the development of biological organisms from the earliest cells to modern humans. It does NOT explain how life arose in the first place, nor anything before that. The origin of life is still a disputed topic, with several contending theories. Going further back in time, the formation of the Solar System and the Earth are explained by theories in physics and geology, which have absolutely nothing to do with natural selection (which is a purely biological phenomenon). The origin of the universe itself is explained by the Big Bang theory, which first arose from extrapolations of the observed expansion of the universe.

So, uh, if you want to argue with the current understanding of how we got from the beginning of the universe to the present day, you'll have to contend with not just one, but at least a dozen different theories spanning biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and astronomy. Even if you could disprove one of them (such as natural selection), that would not disprove the others.

I