Was at least the first life form created?

[theVOID]

If you can't accept a scientific fact because you would rather believe God created the first humans in the Garden of Eden, that's where the answer of "God did it" prevents scientific inquiry.

But what if creation is what really happened? Do you ever consider that it might be what really happened, i.e., the absolute truth? I doubt it.

Creation may have happened - but what reason can you give as to why i should accept that claim? Where is the evidence for creation? Where is the irreducible complexity that the creationists always harp on about? Even the favorite example of irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum, has been conclusively proven not to be irreducibly complex. If you want me to accept the claim that Creation had a part to play in the development of life or the universe you will need conclusive evidence for your claim, until then i will leave you with some Christopher Hitchens:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

Remember the scientific method can only provide models that will provide a naturalistic explanation for something. If you automatically rule out a "supernatural" explanation, you may be ruling out the real answer, i.e. the absolute truth. So while common descent does provide a naturalistic model that explains a lot of what we observe, not every observation fits well with common descent and that may not be how things really happened. I actually find it laughable for anyone (scientists included) to think that the scientific method can provide any more than a guess at what happened in the unobserved past, let alone millions or billions of years ago. I guess I think the scientific method is a lot more limited than you do.

What reason do you have to believe that the supernatural exists? Where is the irrefutable proof for the existence of the supernatural? Do you have anything more than an assumption in regards to it's existence?

The existence of the supernatural could be defined and measured easily through it's effect on the natural world. Psychics could easily demonstrate an ability to gather information beyond the ability of a cold-reader, the effects of prayer could be analysed and statistically shown to be more effective than placebo. James Randi's million dollar challenge has been around for years, and there has not been a single individual ever who has been able to demonstrate any ability higher than chance.

As for the 'unobserved past';

If you know anything at all about cosmology you know that the distance of a foreign body can be estimated to a high-degree of accuracy using triangulation over 6 month periods of the earths rotation around the sun. You will also know that light travels at a constant speed 299,792,458 meters per second and that the light you see from an object is the object as it was x amount of time ago. For an object 100,000 light years away it means we see the light that left the object 100,000 years ago (light years is the number of earth years it would take travelling at the speed of light), so cosmologically, we can literally look back in time.

Evolution is more like a criminal investigation, the same way a detective pieces together the crime from the pieces of evidence left behind. There are two main culprits, evolution and creationism. The detective has literally millions of individual pieces of evidence across multiple fields of study to consider, and after a very long time analyzing the data it is revealed that every single sample collected points to Evolution as the culprit, not a single iota of evidence favors creation.

---

It's quite clearly an opinion, or were you incapable of making that distinction on your own?

I know. I was trying to be funny. Maybe you need to evolve a sense of humor.

Maybe you need to stop dodging questions.