creationists presuppose creation , evolutionists presuppose evolution. both have the same evidence and data,

No, there ARE no data that are better explained by the supernatural than by the natural. None. Not even pete can claim a single *datum* that supports his side. Sure, he can claim that the data that *do* exist don't support our side, but that only shows that he doesn't understand the theory, not that he actually HAS evidence against it.

Second, those who use science don't *presuppose* anything, they can conclude, from the data. Only faith requires pre-supposition. And using your faith to deny the data regardless of what they show is not science.

Believers who think their faith is evidence-based understand neither evidence, which doesn't support the supernatural, or faith, which doesn't require evidence.

IF you want to believe in the supernatural, that's fine, but don't pretend you are drawing a logical conclusion from scientific evidence. You don't NEED to - you have faith, that's the point of faith, is that it doesn't require evidence.

If the existence of supernatural entities or forces could be demonstrated or had been demonstrated, then faith would not be required to believe in them, they would be, well, demonstrable. Like, well, data.

Pete, find us a single molecule that shows how people could possibly have happened without coming from microbes first, and you'll convince the scientific community.

But simply saying I see your molecules and am not convinced because to be so would be failing to bow before god, just shows you haven't actually looked at the molecules, not that you are thinking like a scientist.

You need to come up with actual data, not keep harping on how you don't believe the data that there are.