Pete... but i still posit that it is a philosophical position' rather than science that achieves anything other than positing a theory."

I don't think I quite understand that point. Are you saying that science doesn't make progress? Are you claiming that **interpreting** science is somehow merely 'philosophical'? WHAT is "more likely to be detrimental."?

I'm sorry, Pete, but your arguments and claims are still going in circles when you use the CRI website to justify positions while calling those who debunk "triolobite and dinosaur" tracks 'biased'.

Do you not see that places like the CMI site are the ultimate form of bias? They do...as do you... begin with an unswerving adherence to Biblical interpretations as some sort of 'fact', while trying to twist tested and RE-tested scientific studies into some form of weak 'messing around' with faulty data.

As to an original creator? I simply don't know. Thus, I can't 'deny' it like I can refute some obviously false statements. I DO see no real, serious, clear, specific evidence that ANY being or sentient 'power' organized, planned & 'created' the stuff we see. Sorry, but I just do not accept 'ancient manuscripts' **written by men** as proof of anything. You cannot say...(reasonably).. that God inspired them.

One more time... IF there was a god who wanted us to really know his will and opinions, he would need to use that infinite power to make it so clear NO ONE... even "militant atheists"... could doubt.