Sure it can. If a "divine creator" created the first life but then let it evolve on its own in to different species it would still meant evolution is correct for the origin of species. but abiogenesis would be incorrect for the origin of life.
Actually, no, it would not. You attempts to posit logical fallacies here will not work. As I said earlier, within the context of the OP (which you are attempting to deviate further and further from), a Ã¢â‚¬Å“creatorÃ¢â‚¬Â has absolutely nothing to do with the OP scenario. So I would highly suggest you keep within that scenario when you attempt to answer the question(s).
But, to further dismantle you illogical hypothesis; A Creator scenario definitely Ã¢â‚¬Å“WouldÃ¢â‚¬Â be a part of so-called, and so-faithed, macro-evolution, because a/the Ã¢â‚¬Å“CreatorÃ¢â‚¬Â would have been the Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolverÃ¢â‚¬Â of the original kinds/species.
Therefore, for atheistic macroevolution to even be feasible, it would also require an Ã¢â‚¬Å“evolverÃ¢â‚¬Â such as abiogenesis (or the like).
Also, keep firmly in mind these facts; the atheistic worldview is bereft of ANY factual substantiation for either abiogenesis or macroevolution.
do you believe this is a faith baste statement because i have not provided a link to a scientific paper explain this and providing proof. Or because i/or some one else was not there to witness it?
No, it is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith baste statementÃ¢â‚¬Â because the atheistic worldview is bereft of ANY factual substantiation for either abiogenesis or macroevolution! And, as long as you staunchly and/or dogmatically defend either Macroevolution and/or Abiogenesis as a fact, you are defending a religion (by definition).
How would that not be logical? I mean there are plenty of other animals that show some for of intelligence, specially in our closer evolutionary family. Some even using simple tools. So intelligence didn't just pop out of thin air. We where simply the first to evolve with brains/intelligence large to achieve our current success.
the fact that we did so first doesn't mean much.
Again, you are either ignoring the OP, or not reading the OP. Firstly
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ you are totally (via Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioryÃ¢â‚¬Â thought process) presupposing Ã¢â‚¬Å“our closer evolutionary familyÃ¢â‚¬Â. Secondly
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ your misuse of Ã¢â‚¬Å“simple toolsÃ¢â‚¬Â hardly fit the OP definitions. Thirdly
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Abiogenesis , by definition, means Ã¢â‚¬Å“firstÃ¢â‚¬Â life from non life AND Ã¢â‚¬Å“firstÃ¢â‚¬Â intelligence from non-intelligence did indeed Ã¢â‚¬Å“just pop out of thin airÃ¢â‚¬Â, in order for them to be first!Fourthly
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Your statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“We where simply the first to evolve with brains/intelligence large to achieve our current success.Ã¢â‚¬Â Is totally faith based, and directly a result of your Ã¢â‚¬Å“a prioriÃ¢â‚¬Â wants, presupposed from your world view, with absolutely NO empirically substantiated evidence. And finally
Ã¢â‚¬â€œ The presupposed Ã¢â‚¬Å“we were firstÃ¢â‚¬Â does mean quite a bit. And, it is not that we were (presupposedly) first, but we are the ONLY! And in a supposed millions (billions?) of years, out of all created kinds/species! So oyu are totally missing the entire point!
Therefore, are you going to continue to equivocate, misrepresent and waste time; or are you actually going to answer the OP, within the OP guidelines (context), actually using the OP???
If not, you wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be here long.