It's really very, very simple.
If you think that evolution happens by any means other than natural forces, naturally interacting, then you don't understand evolution.
The only proposals to the contrary weren't really counter-ideas, just people saying "I want God in there so I'm going to suggest that your idea isn't enough, and that we can still squeeze God into those gaps I wedged." Except the gaps weren't there. We looked wherever they pointed, and kept finding no gaps.
Your question about "who made the rules" is a different question, and has nothing to do with how the universe operated after the moment following the Big Bang. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Yet you continue to speak as if you don't understand the difference between those two issues.
If you want to think the universal constants had to be set by some intelligence in order for the universe to operate... um, okay. I don't see any reason to think that, but clearly you do.
But when it comes to "what happened after organic molecules clumped into a form that could self-copy", there's really not much question, and it's clear that we understand the forces at play and why/how it happened, even though the process of mapping out every single aspect of that how will likely never finish being accomplished (requiring, as it would, examination of almost literally every sub-system and gene of every species on earth, including bacteria, archaea, fungi, plants, etc.) by scientists. Ever. It doesn't mean we don't know what we have already learned; it just means there is a lot more of the same stuff to find and to learn.
As long as you keep repeating things we know are not true about evolution, we're not going to believe you're really listening to us. You cannot just say "this is my opinion and that is yours" when your opinion is based on misconceptions, and we (the ones who DO have degrees in this stuff and/or have made it our primary field of study) keep trying to tell you what those misconceptions are.
If you read this post, and then in the next post say something that makes it clear you did not listen to someone who's telling you that you have biology wrong, then you're basically arguing with your mechanic because you think the engine "ought to" run properly and don't like him telling you what you're doing to damage it.
If you think that evolution happens by any means other than natural forces, naturally interacting, then you don't understand evolution.
The only proposals to the contrary weren't really counter-ideas, just people saying "I want God in there so I'm going to suggest that your idea isn't enough, and that we can still squeeze God into those gaps I wedged." Except the gaps weren't there. We looked wherever they pointed, and kept finding no gaps.
Your question about "who made the rules" is a different question, and has nothing to do with how the universe operated after the moment following the Big Bang. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. Yet you continue to speak as if you don't understand the difference between those two issues.
If you want to think the universal constants had to be set by some intelligence in order for the universe to operate... um, okay. I don't see any reason to think that, but clearly you do.
But when it comes to "what happened after organic molecules clumped into a form that could self-copy", there's really not much question, and it's clear that we understand the forces at play and why/how it happened, even though the process of mapping out every single aspect of that how will likely never finish being accomplished (requiring, as it would, examination of almost literally every sub-system and gene of every species on earth, including bacteria, archaea, fungi, plants, etc.) by scientists. Ever. It doesn't mean we don't know what we have already learned; it just means there is a lot more of the same stuff to find and to learn.
As long as you keep repeating things we know are not true about evolution, we're not going to believe you're really listening to us. You cannot just say "this is my opinion and that is yours" when your opinion is based on misconceptions, and we (the ones who DO have degrees in this stuff and/or have made it our primary field of study) keep trying to tell you what those misconceptions are.
If you read this post, and then in the next post say something that makes it clear you did not listen to someone who's telling you that you have biology wrong, then you're basically arguing with your mechanic because you think the engine "ought to" run properly and don't like him telling you what you're doing to damage it.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
