"..2, evolutionists believe a lot of stuff that they are not able to substantiate by observable, testable ,repeatable science... "

They do not "believe" in stuff they have not substantiated, they theorize about it and hold those theories until new evidence either confirms or refutes them--- then they revise the theories and look for MORE evidence---- always trying to make the search follow standard rules of logic and "testable ,repeatable science"

You are disputing an entire realm of science based on your premise that interpretations of various religious texts would lose credibility if the science is correct...and you ignore all the 'stuff' that science IS able to show, test & prove right in front of your nose.

I have refuted your assertion many times that " 3, since there are things they believe only on faith , calling it religion is not unreasonable". It most certainly IS unreasonable.

Pete, your ultimate refuge is simply stating... not showing or proving, but just asserting... that you will view the parts of science that are 'theory' as dubious and will continue to use YOUR version of 'creation' as just as good, even though it cannot EVER be proved.

..so, with that attitude, do you wonder that I... or anyone dedicated to scientific research... would grow weary of answering the same flawed analysis over & over? You are using rhetoric to avoid certain facts, and distorting standard definitions of concepts to conform to your set of unproven beliefs.

So... you are in this little box- a good, honest guy who believes in one thing (that I am not even trying to refute-- that a supreme being created everything) while trying to refute all the research of centuries of science about HOW creation happened and as many steps as we can find.

I can't argue with "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."