It is miraculous that, in spite of entropy, the space-time world more or less maintains itself. Also the cosmological constant should not be made light of; that such constants occur in the accepted theories about space-time, entropy notwithstanding, is miraculous (or, pretty unexpected). Now of course there's that view of Einstein that it was a blunder, it seems no longer to be regarded as such: put that on account of entropy.

Entropy causes degradation, errors. No miracles? then almost all of us are wrong.

...less than 6000.

Humanity's age 6000 years, not earth's.

`And no, you can't manipulate it to get any answer you want.': you literally can; did you know that observation alters the observed (and not only)?

"Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.": the believer also believes that he shall be directed in such a way as to pose the right questions and observe the `sufficient and abstract for the question at hand', thus giving him data to construct consistent (with no need for a consistency proof) formal systems or axiomatic theories (which may well not be formal systems): this is most clear in mathematics where the data is a limiting case of objects (pure extensions, sets), but philosophy as an exact science also furnishes such an example (except for its data being more conceptual, meaningual). Also, as time passes one gets more and more confidence in `For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.' (Luke 8.17) (that saying applies to itself: it is made clearer and clearer by its instances): did you not find strange these?: `But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;' (Matthew 5.44) or `Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:' (Luke 12.51). One explication could be this: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/10/1008636108.full.pdf

Indeed, if you say X and i say not X then at least one of us would be right, so truth is among us (even if your X were `it is not the case that for all X, either X or not X is the case'). So, according to your quotation faith is like science in this regard, in view of its latter half you have to agree that the said quotation is false (for surely, you would not say that science is the denial of observation). Seeing how you agree (cf. the link to the paper above), can I suggest you to question that state of affairs? Who knows, perhaps you are wrong.

`What the f--- does C14 dating have to do with anything?': it has to do with humanity's age, C14 contradicts its being at most 6000 years old. as for exemplars of vomiture, cf. your preceding opus.

`Evolution is simply a well evidenced scientific theory': and how is this `well evidenced', did you witness the process? if so then you are what you aren't (note that it is no rigor to infer on rock and amber). In any case, Lamarckism is much more natural than Darwinism: are not mutations miracles?

As for Augustine, it is better to believe those that are recorded as having spoken to and heard Jesus in person, as e.g, John, and unlike Augustine (their writings are meaningful: these are not for us mere material heaps, as are fossils).

`That's not true. It only makes it uncreated by a creator. You assume that creation requires a creator. The atheist position is that creation can be spontaneous.': :-)

`It has no whims and no desires. It has no demands and no opinions or thoughts or will': interesting, can one not use an extension to the eminently un-bodily of empirical induction (in view of our being thus), to give some vraisemblance to His existence; or, could it be not frighteningly probable that a Being of which we are but restrictions, actually exists?

`It certainly has no expectation from humans': that's of course very convenient.

`Quite the contrary, it is simply a universe in which things do what the rules force them to do, and we can influence and control what they do if we know those rules by changing the circumstances so the rules force them to act differently.': We are heading to an infinite regress here (as in nihilism), whence these forces?

`he universe and reality is not the god of atheism, it is the SERVANT of atheism': `For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.' (Luke 22.27) & `And he is before all things, and by (through) him all things consist.' (Colossians 1.17)

`We are alive because we are made of living cells.': and why are cells living?

Did you know that carbon 14 dating is pretty erratic, and to such an extent that one can interpret the given as he wishes?

`it's proof of science's resilience in that it refuses to call a theory "Fact" without being able to check.': is a modal logical proof of His existence enough of a check?:
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0Tw1fnDScRsYmM4MmYzMjMtODc2Mi00MTNjLTllYTctNTQwNTYzMmZmYTdk&hl=fr
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0Tw1fnDScRsM2JkZmJkNTItMzVjYS00YzliLWI2MzYtNzlkMWUzYjhlZDY1&hl=fr

`The simple truth is - if you believe in God, that's your right, but don't mix theology and science because they have NOTHING in common': that's your right.
`To reject a scientific idea on the grounds that it conflicts with religion is hypocrisy unless you are equally willing to reject a religious idea on the grounds that it conflicts with science.': is it not because in your eyes they appears as negated (or unnecessary, and thus Occam's) by today's science, that you don't accept certain existences?
`thinking built on rationality and demand of proof and consistent': is that computer you use not `created'? Also, removing the need for a Creator of Reality makes that Reality uncreated: what occurs in it can be seen as produced by it; is this not Atheists' god?

Much of what happened in Goedel's mind mirrored reality (spatio-temporal, conceptual and not only his own's thoughts): he was a conceptual and mathematical realist.

0. As for evolution, consider this: http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/02/16/0328212/Acquired-Characteristics-May-Be-Inheritable

1. `many scientists today believe this was not required and there are several alternative viable theories': are they really `viable', are todays scientist all that non-error-prone?

2.`For those of us who don't believe now, it will be just further proof that there's nothing we can't adequately explain WITHOUT a creator.': so for you there are things which confirm that last sentence of yours. Are these not, in a weak sense, `co-creators' (causers) of that same sentence's truth? Moreover, your struggling to make evident that `no Creator is needed' could not be seen as one of its counterexamples? I mean, that you show that one needs to create (construct or prove rather) its truth, itself not being evident, thus at least `no Creator is needed' needs a `creator'.

Thanks for the suggestion (didn't read that). In any case, bearing in mind that Newton seems not to believe in demons, what one finds here: http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/norm/ALCH00081 can perhaps be acceptable even to such an un-spiritual generation as ours.

He just put together the right conditions and then left the Laws of Nature - which we cannot change, nor are material - do the rest. Again, this is no news: cf. Isaac Newton's `metallic vegetations'.