I’ve wondered that for some time. If evolution doesn’t address origins, why do they get so bent out of shape when someone proposes something that does?
And if science doesn’t even have any good theories about origins, how can they tell us that we’re wrong? Based on what?
Scientists can handle more than one theory at a time. Each theory addresses a specific set of facts. The facts dealt with by the theory of evolution and the different hypotheses concerning origins are different. What you are bringing to the discussion is neither scientific nor evidentiary.
And if science doesn’t even have any good theories about origins, how can they tell us that we’re wrong? Based on what?
You are advocating a particular narrow religious belief, not science. You are supporting your contention with scripture and divine revelation, not scientific evidence. To date you have presented no scientific evidence to support your contentions.
Science has approached the problem using the scientific method and has made some progress. That progress has not reached the level of a theory yet, but it is at least attempting to address the question with evidence, rather than divine revelation and belief.
And once again you are showing that you are anti-science. I don't know how you can claim to support science when you avail yourself of every opportunity to dispute both scientific methods and findings in favor of divine revelation.