Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[lrkun]

If you permit, i will quote from my personal virtual library :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/origin-of-life-how-did-life-arise-on-earth-f2/rna-and-the-origin-of-life-t106.htm

The immensity of the problem is rarely appreciated by laymen, and is generally ignored by evolutionary scientists, themselves. The simplest form of life imaginable would require hundreds of different kinds of molecules, perhaps thousands, most of them large and very complex. With respect to this point, Van Rensselaer Potter states, "It is possible to hazard a guess that the number is not less than 1,000, but whether it is 3,000 or 10,000 or greater is anyone's guess."2 This statement not only acknowledges the immensity of the problem, but also is a tacit admission of how little is really known or knowable about the problem.

In addition to these many molecules, which would include the large and complex protein, DNA and RNA molecules, each with up to several hundred subunits arranged in a precise sequence, the origin of life would require many complex and dynamically functional structures, such as membranes, ribosomes, mitochondria (or energy-producing complexes of some kind), etc. Furthermore, life requires marvelous coordination in time and space, with many regulatory mechanisms. To believe that all of this came about by mere chemical and physical processes, does indeed constitute an immense exercise of faith.

"the early stages of the RNA world are too complicated to represent plausible scenarios for the origin of life"

"Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of help from the scientist, says Joyce of the Scripps Clinic, an RNA specialist. " It is an inept molecule," he explains, "especially when compared with proteins." Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who has probably done more research exploring the RNA-world scenario than any other scientist, concurs with Joyce. Experiments simulating the early stages of the RNA world are too complicated to represent plausible scenarios for the origin of life, Orgel says. "You have to get an awful lot of things right and nothing wrong," he adds." (Horgan, John [science writer], "In The Beginning ...," Scientific American, February 1991, p.103. Elipses in original).

"not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date"

"DNA replication is so error-prone that it needs the prior existence of protein enzymes to improve the copying fidelity of a gene-size piece of DNA. `Catch-22,' say Maynard Smith and Szathmary. So, wheel on RNA with its now recognized properties of carrying both informational and enzymatic activity, leading the authors to state: `In essence, the first RNA molecules did not need a protein polymerase to replicate them; they replicated themselves.' Is this a fact or a hope? I would have thought it relevant to point out for 'biologists in general' that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences." (Dover, Gabriel [Professor of Genetics, University of Leicester], "Looping the evolutionary loop," Review of "The Origins of Life: From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language," by John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, Oxford University Press: 1999, in Nature, 399, 20 May 1999, pp.217-218)

"tthe RNA world hypothesis is still far from being proved"

"Nevertheless, despite the fact that most scientists working in this field accept the validity of the idea, the RNA world hypothesis is still far from being proved. For one thing, in almost 20 years only seven types of natural ribozymes have been discovered: two remove introns (parts of RNA that don't code for proteins) from themselves; four cut themselves in two; and one trims off the end of an RNA precursor." (Evans J., "It's alive - isn't it?" Chemistry in Britain, Vol. 36, No. 5, May 2000, pp.44-47. http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2000/evans_may00.htm).

in front of the odds and difficulties, to believe in this scenario constitutes a enormous exercise of faith. What makes you be so credulous in such a improbable scenario ?

If you read my post. Science says it is unknown. However, the theory and hypothesis are alternatives. Just like you asked, I gave an alternative. Do I believe in them no? However, their theory and hypothesis do suggest an explanation.

You have to remember, in science, belief is not a necessity. It also don't claim that this is the one reason or absolute explanation for such. It only gives an interpretation of existing facts - if subjected to the scientific method of which the observation and analysis of the result tend to explain certain phenomenon. It suggests that such is so. It does not say it is so. ^,^

 

[Japhia888]

I would like you to specify what you mean by a "better" explanation. I can offer my definition.

We are trying to explain event E. We have two mutually exclusive explanations A and B.
The probability of E, given that A is true, is P(E|A).
The probability of E, given that B is true, is P(E|B).

If we know that P(E|A) > P(E|B), can we say that A is the better explanation? Obviously not, because the probability of A can be much lower than the probability of B. To determine the better explanation, we must compare P(A|E) and P(B|E). The higher conditional probability is the better explanation.

I made a video about this, called "Is fine tuning good evidence for god?". In the video I also present a challenge to all theists using any kind of fine tuning argument.


The conclusion of the video:
Given that fine tuning exists (actual fine tuning, not the kind that occurs due to our incomplete models), the probability of god's existence is approximately:
P(G)/[P(G) + P(N)]
where,
P(G) = the (prior) probability of god's existence
P(N) = the probability of fine tuning occurring naturally

In order for the fine tuning argument to work, the ratio P(N)/P(G) must be low. If you're trying to make such an argument, you must first show that it is.

If God is the alternative to chance, then God is a infinitely better explanation, since God does not need to work with odds of pure random chance, but with his *intelligence*, which permits him to create a life permitting universe with the just right conditions. What you need to try to, is, to provide a BETTER explanation than God based on this fact.

 

[Japhia888]

If you read my post. Science says it is unknown. However, the theory and hypothesis are alternatives. Just like you asked, I gave an alternative. Do I believe in them no? However, their theory and hypothesis do suggest an explanation.

You have to remember, in science, belief is not a necessity. It also don't claim that this is the one reason or absolute explanation for such. It only gives an interpretation of existing facts - if subjected to the scientific method of which the observation and analysis of the result tend to explain certain phenomenon. It suggests that such is so. It does not say it is so. ^,^

In essence : you don't have a better explanation than God. Did i get that right ?

 

[lrkun]

If you read my post. Science says it is unknown. However, the theory and hypothesis are alternatives. Just like you asked, I gave an alternative. Do I believe in them no? However, their theory and hypothesis do suggest an explanation.

You have to remember, in science, belief is not a necessity. It also don't claim that this is the one reason or absolute explanation for such. It only gives an interpretation of existing facts - if subjected to the scientific method of which the observation and analysis of the result tend to explain certain phenomenon. It suggests that such is so. It does not say it is so. ^,^

In essence : you don't have a better explanation than God. Did i get that right ?

If you weight it in a scale. The alternatives I gave you can be tested. However, God's explanation can not be tested. It suggests a better explanation. ^^,

However, I limit my conclusion only with respect to these, because it is the issue I am addressing at the moment.

Furthermore, other better minds within this forum could explain more with regards to the subject.

 

[SchrodingersFinch]

If God is the alternative to chance, then God is a infinitely better explanation, since God does not need to work with odds of pure random chance, but with his *intelligence*, which permits him to create a life permitting universe with the just right conditions. What you need to try to, is, to provide a BETTER explanation than God based on this fact.

Person X wins the lottery. Which is the better explanation: he has psychic abilities or it was chance?

"If psychic abilities is the alternative to chance, then it's an infinitely better explanation, since psychics don't need to work with odds of pure random chance, but with their magical *knowledge*, which permits them to know what the right lottery numbers will be."

What YOU need to do is provide a definition of a "better explanation". Something that can also be applied to other examples, like the lottery one.
I already gave such a definition, but since you don't seem to agree with it, let's hear what you have to offer.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If God is the alternative to chance, then God is a infinitely better explanation, since God does not need to work with odds of pure random chance, but with his *intelligence*, which permits him to create a life permitting universe with the just right conditions. What you need to try to, is, to provide a BETTER explanation than God based on this fact.

Does this "God" entity have a penis? If not, why do you refer to it as "him"?

Further, why is "God" (for which there is no evidence) a better explanation than "chance"? We see chance at work every day, as well as stochastic processes that involve randomness.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Stuff has always existed ? how do you bring this idea in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics ? Based on that law, if " things " always existed, the universe would have to be already in a state of heath death.

To put it as succinctly as I can, the second law of thermodynamics is no more proof for a temporally finite Universe than the first law is proof for an eternal one.

To go slightly further the second law is time dependent, whereas the first is not. It's possible to conceive of models where entropy is conserved by variations in the arrow of time.

The idea that the Universe is eternal is certainly -- CERTAINLY -- not out of the question according to current physics. Indeed physics treats it as being effectively eternal by definition, because it's defined as everything which physically exists, and non-existence has no coherent definition*.

EDIT: *need to clarify that before someone has me for non-existence of fictional entities! I mean the non-existence of the Universe has no coherent definition in physics. Likewise, the colloquial metaphysical concept of 'nothing' does not exist in physics.

 

[Jotto999]

Japhia888, your argument relies on the assertion that God is a plausible explanation. How do you support this?

 

[Unwardil]

Stuff

Well, one at a time then.

I did provide a mechanism. Stuff attracting and repelling. Actually, attraction is the only required force in order for the universal model to work. Every other physical law is emergent from that.

Simplistic, yes, but then, that's consistent with science. Things don't start complicated and get simple, they start simple and get complicated. When the big bang happened there were no atoms, only once things had cooled down enough did atoms form, and then it was just hydrogen until fusion started to make helium etc etc. Keep on rolling that process backwards and you have my hypothesis of 'Stuff' Stuff attracting other stuff. Everything else is icing on the cake.

But that's just a beginning point, which is wrong anyway if the universe is infinite, there was never a beginning. It's a thing that is. It gets more complex as time passes. Complexities pile onto complexities and new orders emerge. Understanding the specifics allows you to manipulate the natural world and harness it. But in order to do that you need to resort to math and the like, so for my purposes, it's stuff attracting other stuff.

As to the old 'Why not just be a jerk' question, there is one very very important being that cares very much how I act and doesn't like me to be a jerk for no reason and deeply desires me to live in a manner which provides me the maximum of comfort and pleasure without infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others. That being is Me. I don't require license or instruction from a divine creator to enjoy life.

 

[nemesiss]

there is a small thing i would like some clarification regarding your post.
This might influence the response of the other users

- The over 120 finely tuned constants of physics to permit life on earth
- The initial conditions of the universe. how was it possible the inflation rate of the Big Bang being finely tuned to degree of 1 of 10^120 ?
- the galaxy- sun-earth-moon system

which over 120 finely tuned constant of physics are you talking about?
could you list them are give us a link to that list?

the second point someone already started making comments on, but could you give the precise formula that was used to come to that answer or perhaps the source?

the third point, could you elaborate on that a bit more?
from scientific research i read, our galaxy is one out of thousands if not millions or billions.
our solar system is born from the remnants of older start that have already died, they are the origin of all the material of which our solarsystem is made of, which includes the sun, the moon , the earth and also... you.
jupiter as a gravitational well certainly has certainly caught many asteroids, but there have beenalso alot asteroid impacts on the other bodies in our solar system, such as the earth, our moon, mars.. just to name a few.

Im quite curious what important role our moon plays, that without it life could not exist.
it gravatational influence of the moon has some influence on the earth and life, but as far as im aware its not a requirement.i would love to hear your answer on that one.

im gonna keep it that for now, because are still enough questions people would like you to answer.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

We were created as foodstuffs by trans-dimensional Elder Things, who were then in tern consumed by ravenous Shoggoths. We subsequently grew beyond their control and evolved independently.

... at the very least it's no worse a theory then a god. When you realize why it's invalid you should realize why god is also.

 

[Squawk]

If you suggest a mechanism, which spawns out a infinite number of universes, and by accident a life permitting one, you would need to have a explanation for that mechanism. Do you have any ? Have you thought about that ?

Apply that same line of reasoning to a deity, then consider occams razor.

My rejection of a deity can neatly be summed up in occams razor. If I have evidence pointing to a conclusion, I follow it. If I don't, I say "I don't know". That's the only intellectually viable means to arriving at truth, and is infact the physical application of occams razor.

 

[Laurens]

What's the point? What you will do is just endlessly change the criteria for what constitutes 'a better explanation', or simply dismiss all explanations because they do not agree with your biased viewpoint. As other people have said there are better explanations, but you won't concede that any of them are better because you believe you already have the best explanation.

It will go round and round in circles until every argument in the entire history of the whole science vs religion debate has been repeated ad infinitum. Everyone will get frustrated and bad tempered and quite frankly I'd rather just have a cup of tea.

 

[borrofburi]

Please define "BETTER", or, as SchrodingersFinch noted, please define "BETTER explanation".

 

[Deleted member 619]

Hi

usually we, Theists, are attacked in various forms of being less reasonable than atheists, believing in things, that are irrational. What can most be observed, is atheists, skeptics, and agnostics, using very much effort to try to debunk theism, and mainly christianity, as a valid and reasonable world view and belief system.

Well, that's because christianity is irrational. Yahweh doesn't exist. It's a bit irrational to believe in something whose stated attributes are logically contradictory or absurd.

But not much effort is done to present a BETTER world view. So i want to defy you, to present a consistent, reasonable , honest world view based on atheism, relying reasons and arguments, which are BETTER than theism.

How about a worldview based on requiring evidence in support of claims. Speaking of which, have you actually got any of that? More importantly, though, why should we? Are you under the ridiculous impression that if we don't have all the answers to every question you present, your vacuous guff must be true by default, despite a complete dearth of critically robust evidence in support?

And specially adressing following issues :

- please present a BETTER explanation for the existence of our universe, a cosmological argument, which is more rational than Theism gives us. Why is there something, rather than nothing ?

Well, because 'nothing' is impossible. Specifically, it's a violation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Interestingly, it's a corrollary of that very principle that allows you to post this guff, and it's pretty well established.

- please present a BETTER explanation for the fine-tuning of

- The over 120 finely tuned constants of physics to permit life on earth

Care to name these constants? All 120 of them, if you please.

- The initial conditions of the universe. how was it possible the inflation rate of the Big Bang being finely tuned to degree of 1 of 10^120 ?

Who says that the initial conditions of the universe were fine-tuned? Can you think of any barrier to the possibility of the inflation meeting the requisite figure, despite the fact that you just pulled the figure out of your arse or, more accurately, some cretinist apologetics website?

- the galaxy- sun-earth-moon system :

You think these were fine-tuned? In what way were they fine-tuned? What is it about them that you think is fine-tuned?

considering :

to have just one life permitting universe, you need 1 to 10^500 attempts to get it done.

And this number is based on what critically robust evidence? This soounds like the sort of fatuous drivel Kalamity Craig spouts all the time. He doesn't have the first understanding of cosmology either.

Thats a 1 with 500 zeros.

Thanks for the maths lesson, especially given that your formulation of the figure is wrong. It should read 1 x 10^500. Of course, it would still be a rectally extracted figure until you give it some context. Funnily enough, the context answers your question, not that you'd remotely understand the context, of course.

If we put it in comparison, that in our universe, there exist around 10^80 atoms, this shows how improbable it is, that a Multiverse could explain finetuning.

Do you have any understanding of probabilities? Firstly, given a large enough sample set, even hugely improbable events become inevitable. Secondly, the probability of the universe supporting life is precisely 1:1. Of all the universe ever observed, every single one of them has supported life.

Beside this, the Multiverse argument does not explain away God.

Multiverse is a terrible word. It has been employed to differentiate other cosmic expansions from our own. There is, however, only one universe. The universe is literally all that exists, including other cosmic expansions and, incidentally, your preposterous magic man, if this cretinous entity does indeed exist. That makes your imaginary friend a subset of the set of all existing things. That's a bit of a problem for a creator, isn't it?

And we don't have to explain away god, because he hasn't been explained yet. That's how it works. First evidence, then explanation. Again, got any of that?

A mechanism needs to be in place to trigger these multiverses.

There are several candidates in place. Don't you have any new arguments? All this fuckwittery has already been comprehensively demolished time and again.

It could not be by physical need, since if so, why are there many planets, which are not life permitting, but our is ?

Can't wait until you tell me how many of the planets in the cosmos are life-permitting. If you actually have an answer to this question, and can provide rigorous evidence in support, there are some very serious men in Stockholm that would like a word with you. They have a nice, shiny medal ready to engrave your name on it, alongside the picture of the man who invented dynamite. You'd like a nice, shiny medal, wouldn't you?

So its best explained by design.

Or because the laws of physics permitted it...

Our earth/solar/moon system is a very strong evidence. Our solar system is embedded at the right position in our galaxy, neither too close, nor too far from the center of the galaxy. Its also the only location, which alouds [sic] us to explore the universe, In a other location, and we would not see more than stellar clouds.

Are you saying that a life-permitting planet could only exist in this location in all of the universe? Completely aside from the fact that nothing in the solar system is standing still, making the idea of a single spatial location nonsense (you do know, don't you, that the sun orbits aroud the galactic hub once in 2.5 x 10^8 years? This means that Earth doesn't arrive back at the same location in at least that long, and probably a good deal longer. It's entirely probable that the Earth doesn't hit exactly the same location in space for many, many orbits. I'm sure AndromedasWake will be able to give some more solid figures in this regard, but that's assuming the calculations can even be done, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised if they're completely intractable).

The earth has the right distance from the sun, and so has the moon from the earth. The size of the moon, and the earth, is the right one. Our planet has the needed minerals, and water. It has the right atmosphere, and a ozon protecting mantle. Jupiter attracts all asteroids , avoiding these to fall to the earth, and make life impossible. The earths magnetic field protects us from the deadly rays of the sun. The velocity of rotation of the earth is just right. And so is the axial tilt of the earth. Beside this, volcano activities, earth quakes, the size of the crust of the earth, and more over 70 different paramenters must be just right.

A little bit of rigour by the Blue Butterfly on this goldilocks zone nonsense:

As someone else has already pointed out, Earth's orbit is not circular, it is elliptical. Viz:

Aphelion: 152,097,701 km
Perihelion: 147,098,074 km

Difference: 4,999,626 km

So at a bare minimum, the "Goldilocks zone" is almost 5 million km wide. And probably a good deal wider.

Plus, the Sun is losing mass continuously, as a result of the process of hydrogen fusion. A fraction of the mass of any atom is composed of nuclear binding energy, and fusion of hydrogen into helium results in the liberation of 14.7 MeV of binding energy for every pair of fused hydrogen atoms. 14.7 MeV isn't a lot of mass on its own - the mass is equal to 17.7 MeV/c2 = 2.355199 × 10-12J/c2 = 2.620512 × 10-29 Kg.

However, the Sun is fusing something like 9.2 × 1037 fusible nucleons per second, which yields a mass loss of 2.410 × 109 Kg per second, using my figure for the binding energy loss. This simple back of an envelope calculation is simply the binding energy loss for D-D fusion, and doesn't take into account the intricacies of the proton-proton chain series of reactions, which require more in-depth calculations. However, those calculations have been performed, and the resulting figure for total mass loss (including kinetic energy of neutrinos) yields a figure of 4.28 × 109 Kg per second for the Sun. Therefore, in 5 billion years' time, when the Sun will be heading for the red giant stage, the Sun will have lost 6.74 × 1026 Kg of mass. Its current mass is 1.9891 × 1030 Kg, so it will have lost 0.03% of its mass in 5 billion years' time. Other causes of mass loss include ejection of particles in the solar wind, and therefore, after 5 billion years, the Sun could have lost as much as 30% of its current mass, which means that the Earth's orbit will move outwards thanks to the mass proportionality terms in the gravitational force equation. If that happens, the planet will become very hot once the red giant phase is underway, but the planet won't be captured within the expanding plasma envelope. Which means that in 5 billion years' time, the so-called "Goldilocks zone" is going to be a LONG way distant from where it currently is.

Even before then, however, the Sun is increasing in luminosity by about 10% every billion years. Which means that the heat output is increasing accordingly, and in just 1 billion years' time, the "Goldilocks zone" will move beyond Earth's orbit, because conditions here will be too hot for liquid water to persist. The oceans will eventually be evaporated away, and life on Earth as we know it will cease to exist 4 billion years before the red giant scenario becomes a problem. Plus, if the Earth survives the red giant and planetary nebula phase, the next problem it faces is the fact that the Sun will end its days as a tiny white dwarf, and from that point on, conditions on any surviving Earth will be more akin to those on Jupiter's moon Europa. Which means that the "Goldilocks zone" is a dynamic entity, changing over time, and the idea that somehow, this was all set up just for us by some invisible magic man is laughable to anyone who understands the relevant physics.

- please present a BETTER explanation than creation for the existence of life on our planet

The laws of physics or, more accurately, the principles that are described by the laws of physics.

- the existence of higher taxonomic groups, if you believe in common ancestry.

-please explain a BETTER mechanism than design for DNA, consciousness, the hability [sic] of thinking and speech,

Evolution by natural selection.

and morality.

We are social animals. If you mean objective morality, no such thing exists. It certainly can't exist if morality operates on the whim of your magic man, which makes it necessarily subjective.

-please explain, what meaning your life has.

None, except that which I give it.

And if it has no reason, how can you live happy knowing, that your life is completely futile and senseless ?

Does life have to have meaning to be enjoyable?

Please AVOID starting beating and arguing why theism is not valid for you. What i wish to see, is a consistent, logical and reasonable world view based on atheism, which
does not take God into consideration, which explains all presented phenomenas [sic] in a way, that stands to rigorous examination and scrutiny.

Well, I for one couldn't give a flying fuck what you want. You don't get to dictate how others conduct discourse. If I want to beat your cretinous nonsense into the ground with a sledge hammer, then that's precisely what I will do. If you don't like that, please ensure that the postern remains unimpeded by the gluteal region as you egress.

In any event, you seem to have misplaced the burden of provision of evidence, which brings me back to my earlier point. You have much to present here, but the rewards may be great.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Oh, and welcome, Japhia888, or should I say Jireh. You should be aware that plagiarism and quote-mining are sanctionable offences on this forum as well.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Stuff has always existed ? how do you bring this idea in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics ? Based on that law, if " things " always existed, the universe would have to be already in a state of heath death.

You've already been schooled repeatedly on entropy and the 2LT elsewhere. You should be aware that quite a few members of ratskep are also members here.

 

[Aught3]

usually we, Theists, are attacked in various forms of being less reasonable than atheists, believing in things, that are irrational. What can most be observed, is atheists, skeptics, and agnostics, using very much effort to try to debunk theism, and mainly christianity, as a valid and reasonable world view and belief system. But not much effort is done to present a BETTER world view. So i want to defy you, to present a consistent, reasonable , honest world view based on atheism, relying reasons and arguments, which are BETTER than theism.

First point to make is that viewpoints and hypotheses can be critiqued without the need to offer a replacement. We can know that an explanation is wrong without knowing what the correct answer is. I think you've also set the bar rather low with asking for something better than theism. The criteria I would have for a better explanation is evidence, parsimony, concordance, and explanatory scope. Theism certainly fails on the first three, this means that almost any explanation you could dream up would be better than a god. I could just say super-intelligent hyper-dimensional aliens did it, and that would have more evidence, more parsimony, more concordance, and at least equivalent explanatory scope as theism.

A better explanation for existence


A better explanation for life


A better explanation for design


The only exception to this would be morality which I think is partly evolved, partly cultural. We can discuss this further if you wish.

I'm willing to defend the content of those videos against any criticism you would have showing that they are not better explanations than theism.

On fine tuning: it doesn't surprise me the environment in which life arose can support life. I don't see a fine tuning problem. If you are asking where the physical constants came from I would say some of them had to have their particular value and, of those that could vary, they have their values by pure chance.

On meaning: there is no ultimate meaning, no Meaning with a capital 'm'. However, each of us gives our own life meaning through work, our children, charity, friendship, religion, love, etc, etc. My own personal meaning of life is to leave the world a better place than when I came into it.

The only question I don't understand is about the taxonomic groups, but the pattern of DNA evidence in extant organisms proves beyond a reasonable doubt that common ancestry is a real phenomenon.

 

[Japhia888]

There's no debate to be had, if your entire position is based on not liking the evidence presented by science and reason.

who told you i don't like the evidence presented by science ?
Science and reason are btw. not the same thing.

If you eliminate every place where science makes theism look stupid

stupid looks maibe at this moment only your assertion.

that STILL doesn't provide a single bit of evidence to support whatever it is you believe.

that looks even worse now. Maibe you might think a little further about this issue.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/science-and-the-commitment-to-naturalistic-worldview-t335.htm#1189

I just want you to look at that first clause: "The conclusions of scientists are based on evidence". Is this really true? Is this always true? If this is true, why is it that sometimes two people can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions?

When it comes to the naturalistic theories of evolution, encompassing the whole history of the universe, the evidence that is used is what is called "indirect" or "circumstantial" evidence.

This means evidence that can be used to make inferences, tentative conclusions based on logic and previous conclusions (including presuppositions) in the absence of direct observation.

Previous conclusions are very important in determining what conclusion you are going to come up with in the end, since they normally limit your scope of possibilities or add bias.

If you believe something, you should have evidence for it. I have never seen a single bit of useful or meaningful bit of evidence for any theistic belief, so I don't believe a bit of it.

Then its time to show it to you :

Where Does the Evidence Lead?

http://creationwiki.org/Where_Does_the_Evidence_Lead%3F

Part 1 LIFE: THE BIG QUESTIONS A new challenge to the theory of natural selection.
Part 2 WHAT DARWIN DIDN'T KNOW Exploring the complexity of the living cell.
Part 3 MOLECULES & MOUSETRAPS Molecular machines that defy Darwin's theory.
Part 4 HOW DID LIFE BEGIN? Why "chance" cannot explain the origin of life.
Part 5 THE LANGUAGE OF LIFE DNA genetic information, and life on Earth.
Part 6 THE DESIGN INFERENCE The scientific evidence for intelligent design.

 

[Japhia888]

If you weight it in a scale. The alternatives I gave you can be tested.

So why have they not been tested yet ?