We both know how you feel (and I) about evolution so let’s not pretend otherwise. Let us start this out by coming to some understandings first. You didn’t write the bible and I didn’t write evolutionary theory so neither of us is responsible there.
Agree. I didn't write the Bible and I am not responsible for it, but I believe it is true. You didn't write Evolutionary Theory and are not responsible for it, but you've indicated you believe it is true. That I believe the Bible is true is nothing less than unwavering faith in God as it's principal Author. That you believe Evolutionary Theory is true is nothing less than unwavering faith in the myths of evolutionists now commonly known as Darwinian Evolutionism.
Rather than Science, Darwinian Evolutionism is a philosophy---belief (faith) in the myth of macroevolution.
All my arguments stem from my personal determination that the bible was a work of fiction, an internal church document at best. And because I do not believe it has one word from any deity in it, I don’t rely on it for anything … not as advertised. If you could become less hostile there are a few things you need to at least understand. I have nothing besides the evidence presented to me through the various sciences to work with, nothing at all so don’t seem surprised when I defend my argument in that way. There is nothing I could possible add or subtract from our knowledge base because I am not qualified to do so, I am only allowed an opinion just like you. I am not required to accept / reject anything I don’t want to any more than you, I just seem to understand things better probably because I am not trying to break anything, just trying to understand things better.
Ok, back to the basic question of human origin..who, why, when, how? Both Religion, the Church, the Biblical testimony on Creation and Science (I'm thinking historical geology and genetics ) can help give us some explanation as to a plausible Origins concept.
So, to answer the basic why, who, when, how questions of human origins, on the one hand, we've got the scientific researcher who begins with the belief the Bible contains a description of true history, and on the other hand, we've got the scientific researcher who begins to answer the basic question of human origins with the philosophical mindset of Darwinian Evolutionism.
The first scientific researcher believes metaphysics, theology and scientific analysis of natural phenomena are valid paths to gaining knowledge while the other scientific researcher believes Darwinian Evolutionism is the only valid path to knowledge. They regard the existence of a transcendent Creative God beyond this natural world as invalid and unscientific. It's not strange at all that Darwinian Evolutionism is so popular among atheists and agnostics. For them, it's everything! The all-important priority is maintaining the Darwinian Evolutionism philosophy, even if it's a 200 + year old theory that has utterly failed in their attempt to prove scientifically that there has been a descent with modification evolutionistic origin of humankind.
But back then in Darwin's day, they didn't have the modern science of Genetics which has today disproved Darwin's ideas of macroevolution as wholly mistaken.
So why is Darwinian Evolutionism still being sold to school children and the public as true fact?
Because Evolutionary Theory has moved from a set of hypotheses to be tested to a naturalistic philosophy...a world-view Empirical science is not the primary value at stake for if it were, it would have long ago been limited to microevolution, change within kind.
"the conclusions of science can then be misleadingly p;ortrayed as refuting arguments that were in fact disqualified from consideration at the outset. As long as scientific naturalists make the rules, critics who demand positive evidence for Darwinism need not be taken seriously> They do not understand how science works. To question whether naturalistic evolution is "true", on the other hand is to talk nonsense. Naturalistic evolution is the only conceivable explanation for life, and so the fact that life exists proves it to be true. ...The important question, however, is whether this philosophical viewpoint is merely understandable professional prejudice, or whether it is the objectively valid way of understanding the world. That is the real issue behind the push to make naturalistic evolution a fundamental tenet of society, to which every one must be converted." Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial", pages 115, 121.
Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature (just in case you were serious).
Hmmm? Macroevolution (change beyond kind where new higher genetic information is gained) is not speciation. Speciation is "microevolution" or simply change within kind due to reshuffling of genes.
So, if we've observed anything, it's microevolution, BIG difference from macroevolution.