"shimrod - round an round we go. we both have a faith position since you cling to unproven theories and ideas lacking any evidence whatever. I at least have a creator to posit, who is immaterial while you posit popping into existence from nothing via no one."

No, pete, only you, and your fellow creationists, have a "faith position" - i.e. you, and they, have been brainwashed into fervently believing old myths without question. Scientists, on the other hand, gather evidence, test theories and build models. Those models are, by their very nature, provisional and can be over-turned and discarded in the face of new evidence (a much less comfortable - but more exciting - position than blind, unquestioning faith).

And, in your opinion, it comes down to an "immaterial creator" (???) vs "popping into existence etc." does it? As far as I'm concerned I am aware that there is evidence for the latter (how ever unconvincing you insist on finding it) and absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, for the former (myths and stories in an old book don't count as evidence).

Oh yes, pete:

Who or what made God?
What materials did the God-maker use?
Where did God gets his materials from?