Creationists Should Learn to Play the Game Called Science

Evolution isn't science either. Things proven by science are observable, testable and able to be repeated.

Radiometric dating cannot be proven to be reliable.

The fossil record as evidence is a joke.

The layers of the earth could just as easily prove a world wide flood.

Evolutionists just assume all these things are in spport of evolution.

It's one big assumption based on many smaller assumptions.

Evolution is not scientific in the slightest

Without faith justice would be fully rational, and totally explainable by science, but then that wouldn't be justice but just a measure of conformity to specified rules and goals. You are playing wordgames with the definition of justice, because you refuse to define justice as spiritual, so you leave it in the middle whether or not you have a science of good and evil.
A system of justice must always allow freedom for the judge, because without decision we can't get to the spiritual realm where justice is. This freedom is best transferred to a jury, so the emotional burden doesn't get too heavy on the judge.What you are talkig about as justice, zero sum games, in this context it is basically a science of good and evil, how could I conclude differently?Faith implies a set of beliefs about the spiritual, and a commitment to those beliefs. Right you can't have any society without that, I don't think so, I've never seen it, but what you can do, is to leave those beliefs free eventhough they are neccessary for society.

But we can prove as a matter of scientific fact that decisions are made in the universe ...

I connected it to the subject at issue with argument, the mystery, so it is legitemate. Asking for decision to be confined to a thread, is like asking that you would confine cause and effect in the universe to a single thread.

Gee, let's not do that. I have previously referenced a science paper which says decisions are real by an awardwinning wellknown professor ...

If you can show me that you support science about decisions, and that it is basically different from mine, then I will confine myself to a single thread. But otherwise I conclude that you wish to oppress knowledge about decisions altogether, and I won't confine myself to a single thread, and request that you be stopped from oppressing an entire category of knowledge.But I know that you don't have any science about decisions, because you don't seem to know anything about the theory I referred to, which I know to be the only theory in science that confirmed free will. And that theory is by an awardwinning professor, and you don't seem to be an awardwinning professor yourself.

You and the other guy need to state your science about decisions, I've already done so.