Presuppositionalism

The problem with this argument is that it presumes you have telepathy. Notice you assert (as hearsay) what the wishes are, of certain people, simply because you believe them to be. Such as, "what they are interested in".My question to arrogant atheists is the same one I usually ask, where do you get this remarkable telepathic ability to know my motives? Is it sufficient for you to simply state something negative, state what our motives are, and then think because you state those are our motives, they really are? I am not convinced that your cynical conclusion is anything more than your own bias against creationists in the guise of reason but the actuality is sophistry.Do you think it is a clever argument you have created, if you assert we have motive X. No, what you have is a begging-the-question fallacy asserted in a priggish and sneering way.Moreover it seems to be a common habit of yours to generalise. "They are largely uninterested". This is to basically go for the usual, "your group is bad, they all have trait P, our group doesn't and we're all fantastic."Typical Dr A, he always has to argue the person rather than the arguments. Not really, no. The overt evidence for a Creator is a creation, which is tautologous like the evidence things can fly is a successful plane flight. So there is no escaping we have reasons to believe. That you think you have hijacked God's creation by giving your evolution-story the glory, won't change sound logical notation.When we see colour, symmetry, immense design to a level that makes the jaw drop in many instances then we have plenty of reasons to believe because that is the correct evidence. And by now the complaints about that evidence are well known to be false arguments, such as the vas deferens, recurrent laryngeal nerve, position of the photo receptors of nerve net in the eye, choking, etc....it's all been done and anatomists can tell us that there is no incorrect design, only atheists pretending they understand engineering and falling on their faces, like when Dawkins got his anatomy mixed up, like a blundering oaf.You also seem to think that facts and reason would preclude a Creator almost as though facts and reason are the antithesis to God existing. This is a typical mistake atheists/evolutionists make, that they seem to belief all things reason and factual, instantly support, "not God".One thing that has to be considered for example, is that where there is now a natural explanation where there was a supernatural one because of a GOTG fallacy, this doesn't mean that because the natural one supersedes it that therefore the natural answer is immediately a-theist. In fact if God never claimed for example, to physically and literally create lightning, to begin with but rather created a universe with natural laws, then if that nature only came about because God created it, then everything, "nature" would be put in the "theist" box, not outside of it.Now I am certainly open to contrary evidence to those things which you argue can occur naturally. If there really is some science showing how life can come about naturally for example rather than the 100% induction of experiments which support that life only seems to be able to come from life, naturally, then fine, show the strong scientific data to support it. Meanwhile as a true rationalist, I take correct qualification of evidence, and that means miraculous intelligent design is OVER-QUALIFIED, and the circumstantial case for evolution and it's various story-tellings, don't over-turn such total evidence of the miraculous. To pretend to myself butterflies and trees and people aren't evidence of a Creator is basically your request, when we get past the scientific-varnish, the guise of scientific legitimacy, where ultimately there is only a story for materialists.