And if the fossil was found, would you accept it as such or claim it "was not human" or just a "short hunched over human"? What kind of fossil would be evidence to you?
It happens that all the fossils that have been found so far are either 100% human DNA or 100% ape DNA.
As for DNA evidence between ape and man...there's an extra chromosome in apes, we have one less. If you take a look at one of our chromosomes (the second, I believe) you'll see that it's actually 2 fused together(there's an end piece code in the middle). Logic would dictate that somewhere along the line a pair of chromosomes joined and we sprung forth from that.
Truth is the proof that evolutionists need is REAL evidence of species change not similarity of chromosomal structure or function.
So, in other words, there is no potential fossil evidence that you would consider proof. I'll ask again, what would constitute evidence of species change to you?
...macro evolution is not occurring now and the fossil record reveals it has not occurred in the past.
Bzzt, sorry but even if the fossil record did not reveal macro evolution occurring as you vehemently believe, it would not mean it "revealed" that it didn't occur.
What do you mean these have nothing to do with evolutionary theory? Of course ET has given us their version of the origin of the universe, the world, and how living cells came about.
Apparently, you seem to think your categorization/definition of evolutionary theory is the only one that counts. If you want to debate abiogenesis, earth's formation, or the beginnings of the universe fine, but don't call them evolutionary theory. It is almost like you want to attack evolutionary theory but can't so you attack its "relatives and friends" (so to speak) in hopes of proving it guilty by association.
Evolution theory essentially is a set of ideas promoting the Godless view...
Evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of god(s), anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Its insights and ideas may run counter to certain literal interpretations of certain ancient texts, but it in no way attempts to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings. This is true of science in general.
I myself don't base my life on "word of mouth".
Really? So, if your neighbor's house down the street was burning and someone came to your door for help and told you of the incident, you wouldn't believe it on "word of mouth"?
Acting on news of a house fire in my neighborhood is not basing my life on word of mouth. It is using the present, and verifiable I might add, information to make short term, one time decisions that may or may not have a varying impact on my life in the long term. If I suspect my neighbor of lying, I can run down the street to check, or more likely just look for smoke from where I am at. If my neighbor is lying, then I'll just be a little winded and pissed but it won't affect my life long term unless I get hit by a car or trip and break my neck because I was hurrying, etc... It will not affect what I do with my life in the long term, who I choose to associate with (except probably not with them), or how I spend my weekends.
The only science I've shot down as a lie is pseudo science that says life came from non-life and over billions of years the earth was formed...
You haven't actually shot them down, just disputed them; and neither of them are within the scope of the field of evolutionary theory.
...and after millions of years afterward humans evolved from apes.
Again, still haven't shot it down, just disputed it; and in case no one has told you before, an argument from incredulity is not a valid one.
I'm fully aware of the way the world works
If you think it preposterous that the earth could have formed on its own over a long period of time, and that some supernatural force just willing it into existence is a more likely explanation, then you apparently aren't aware of the way the world works. You see, one of the ways it "works" is gravity, which will "work" on you whether you believe in it or not.
scientific theory about origins tends to favor the Creationist version than the Evolutionist one.
Please do tell. What is this scientific theory that favors the Creationists' version?
Will you agree that a scientific hypothesis incapable of scientific demonstration of being verified as true or false is not, strictly speaking, a scientific hypothesis?
No, a hypothesis is an idea that has not been tested at all (or not much at least). Very little in science can be proven true/false. Most is just likely/unlikely and fits/doesn't fit the data. For instance, while the theory of gravity explains how gravity holds matter to matter, how the planets and stars move, and even how the earth possibly formed with no intervention by an outside force necessary; it does really state how it does what it does, nor can it state that it will do it the same way tomorrow. Technically, with the scientific method, you cannot even prove that yesterday even happened or that the universe even existed 1 second ago.
Whenever there is a question of the supernatural or of the miraculous, it's beyond the limits of empirical science to tell us about the material reality and what are the principals of its operations.
Yes, the supernatural is beyond the limits of science, but you cannot ever know if something is supernatural or just the unexplained natural. You see, calling something supernatural presupposes it cannot be explained and will never be explainable. But, just like you don't know what you don't know, you can't know there is no explanation for something you don't have an explanation for. Saying something is supernatural is claiming you know something you cannot possibly know. It is claiming you know what you don't know.