Perhaps you could breathe some new life into that thread by answering some of these simple and pertinent questions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow I am actually very impressed, that someone finally took the time to re-post what they think I have not answered
As I looked at each one of these i see and remember that i have actually answered and responded to each one
If admin wishes to give me the time I can respond again to each one
The basic fallacy for each one of these highlights is two-fold.
First you use a contrived and exclusive definition for the words science and evidence. IOWs you have abandoned the basic meaning of the words science and evidence
Secondly, you start in the middle of the process called investigation (Scientific method) and claim that origins dont matter to the process of the scientific method
Which of course in any normal investigation the how and why, always matter
So as a mattter of convience you ignore this point of the process for yourself and require it of the theist in his scientific method
Thereby creating one set of rules for yoursel and another for us. Imagine that
And that is just the start. If admin allows I would be happy to respond to each one in turn
™ Version 4.2