In this thread are many empirical observations and we should all think rationally about them, each one holds a clue to life on earth.
Who in this thread also thinks that their theory may be wrong? A rational thinker will not rest in the belief that s/he already knows everything s/he needs to know, but if something is wrong with an idea s/he will specifically state the problem. We are all here to learn.
I am also here to give a voice for Intervention Theory; it is an alternative to Creationism and Darwinism.
I will admit that Intervention Theory may be wrong, but my attempts to discuss the details with others in this thread have failed precisely because others will not admit to the same about their own theories. Others in this thread think that
their theory alone is factual, but a theory is just a rational explanation of observations, and if your explanation does not plausibly fit the observations that I am presenting, then mine is obviously more rational by definition.
Who are you to say that you are more rational than me if you cannot even make your theory fit my observations? I think that my theory is superior but you do not need to conclude GOD, you just need to conclude that you don't know everything yet:
The A-s strangely assume that those who believe in God believe in a fairy tale. It’s a postulation they arrogantly consider themselves qualified to make as if they have mastered the totality of knowledge of life and of the Universe – an intellectual hypocrisy they deem to be nowhere near as bad as the supposed fallacy of the believers’ blind faith. Yet they sanctimoniously use said blind faith in their own God Complex or their Know-it-all Syndrome to appoint themselves as the new gods and unseat the true God whom they pompously declare to be either dead or non-existent. It’s their equivalent of a coup d’état.
Hence they rebuff everything and anything that have to do with the Almighty. They have developed a fantasy – in many cases a hatred – that can only be explained thus:
“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” Psalm 14:1
They actually fool themselves to believe there’s no God by adhering to cockamamy theories like the Theory of Evolution (see how we destroy that nonsense here) and the Big (bada-bing-bada) Bang Theory, which they want humanity to believe are facts when in reality they’re just that, theories (i.e., unproved assumptions or conjectures).
I will link Pye's essay again because I think the domesticated plants are a powerful example:
However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen and picked up and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: miracle.
Of course, "miracle" implies that there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because, in each case, in each area, someone actually had to look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they somehow had to ensure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.
Also take a look at:
'More Rational Than Thou', an open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer, it discusses "three remaining mysteries in evolution" listed by Dawkins.
The math behind evolution is far from the only example of biological studies failing to be complete and thorough.
