I'm not sure the word "supernatural" applies to a state before there was any nature. The big bang brought our laws of physics and natural processes into being; it couldn't have violated laws that didn't exist. Beyond that, I don't think much about the big bang. It's a fascinating hypothesis, but I won't pretend to have enough physics expertise to assess its likelihood.
Have you noticed any facts or evidences, even just a few small ones, that don't make sense with your understanding of evolution or origins, or does it all make perfect sense to you?
As far as origins go, I have no opinion. As for evolution, no, I don't know of any facts that don't make sense with my understanding of it.
But there are certain natural laws that we have known all our lives. We have no free-standing evidence that they have never not existed, but the big bang happened outside of all currently known natural laws. It was beyond natural, or super-natural. (By free standing evidence I mean non-circular. If we use the big bang as evidence that the laws of physics were once vastly different, then we cannot use the fact that the laws were once vastly different as evidence that the big bang could have happened.)
The big bang brought our laws of physics and natural processes into being; it couldn't have violated laws that didn't exist.
So you're saying that the big bang brought about gravity? Do you ever wonder where the source substance for the big bang came from? It sure looks like an article of faith to me.
Beyond that, I don't think much about the big bang. It's a fascinating hypothesis, but I won't pretend to have enough physics expertise to assess its likelihood.
Understood. I don't find the evidence compelling myself. (Or even plausible.)
As far as origins go, I have no opinion.
OK.
As for evolution, no, I don't know of any facts that don't make sense with my understanding of it.
I'm assuming here that we're talking about "macroevolution" or from amoeba to a man, rather then the easily observed variation between individual generations. (I grew up on a small family farm so I certainly know that while you tend to get black kittens if you breed black cats, that the kittens won't be exactly the same as their parents.)
What about the drastic gap between the intelligence of the human and his next closest living non-human ancestor? Wouldn't you expect there to be some intermediate, if evolution is true?
What about the lack of the millions of "As of yet undiscovered intermediate species" -- do you wonder why if there were these millions of generations, why we don't find a complete array of finely incremental fossils?
After all, it takes an enormous number of generations to get from amoeba to man. And man wasn't even the only end result -- there was the lines leading to the whales and the cows and horses. So there had to have been literally millions of generations. Man has been breeding horses and cows and all sort of farm animals for all of recorded history, which goes back several thousand years, and yet animals and people are still pretty much the same. So we can see that a thousand generations (Most animals are ready to reproduce after a year or two.) isn't a significant number when talking about speciation. So it must have taken millions or billions of generations.
Now if there had only been a thousand intermediate species needed to build a finely divided developmental path from amoeba to man, and we only found 10, I'd say "Well, yeah, it's going to be hard to find all of that few in such a big world." But with the number of generations that would have been required plus the number of different branches there were, we should be seeing enormous numbers of fossils -- not just a few dozen specimens which appear to be some sort of intermediate.
How would you rate your certainty that the hypotheses of "Amoeba to man" is correct? "Maybe?" Probably? Certainly? Somewhere between Knowing it and Believing it?
Thanks,
-Jesse