logical positism? so i invite steve to demonstrate the evidence for his aint no god position and all we get is more assertions that darwinism is an established fact.IMO that very assertion is in question and since steve is next to definite that God does not exist the onus is on him to demonsrate the evidence [ i am not arguing about the bible at this stage of this challenge,musket]

I don't need to produce evidence for the probability that God does not exist because your assertion that he does exist has as much credibility as the assertion that Saturn's atmosphere is populated by seven-legged blue fellows with two willies each (actually, that's more likely than God, but do let's move on). Boringly, here's the point in a nutshell. Nature is beautiful, complex and diverse. We understand, more or less, the laws that govern it (we're closing in fast on the ones that still puzzle us). We can use the theory of natural selection and all the laws of physics to explain life and the universe. It's all very elegant, very wonderful, and very ordinary, and it works. Fabulous, I'd say. But you come along and interpose God. Now nature is complex enough, and for all we know nature exists on billions of other planets in the universe. Yet you think you can explain all that diversity and complexity with a God who breaks every rule of the universe, who has defied time in order to exist for infinity, and, in view of the complexity of life here and probably in billions of other places, must be infinitely more complex himself. Not only that, you appear to not be able to explain how the fellow came about in the first place. You are, in effect, trying to explain the already complex with the utterly inexplicable. Your explanation ratio is so pathetic that you end up with something far more inexplicable than the stuff he's supposed to explain. It wouldn't be half so bad if the fellow had ever shown his face, but, apart from a desert-dweller who lived two thousand years ago and about whom we have only the words of men who lived a hundred years after him, we are still waiting.

As for "Darwinism" being an established fact, it's more than that. It's a great truth, supported by a huge body of evidence. Don't get me started on evidence, pete. Let's just say that chaps telling you stuff from pulpits, people claiming to have had visions, dodgy translations of dodgy, ancient texts (carefully selected so as not to include "gospels" that don't suit the tale), traditions and "theology" simply don't pass the evidence test.

Finally, perhaps you'd care to expand on what you mean by "chemical evolution".