Quote:

We had this already. Superstitions are based on beliefs in supernatural forces:



Evolutionists love to redefine things. Superstition is a belief (in this case) that is maintained despite the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

You have a superstitious belief in impossible chance. I have a non-superstitious belief in a creator. What I believe about that creator could be said to be superstitious, but the creator exists nonetheless.

I'm not going to do as good a job as someone else in explaining why, because I'm too lazy. But here's a link which also touches on why infinite time cannot be used in regards to the universe.

http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/doesGodexist/index.html

Quote:

For instance, the Ptolemean world view - the assumption that the earth is the unmoving center of the universe - is scientificially wrong, but not a superstition.



If anyone believed this today, they would be superstitious. This goes against the laws of nature.

Quote:

It's a lot more than speculation, but I accept that it's not a direct observation. Let's call it just "evidence".



Evidence of what? Its evidence that we were designed by the same designer, just as much as its evidence that we have a common ancestor. And if its evidence for both, then its evidence for neither.

Quote:

but I was referring to an universe of infinite size, not infinite time.




No paradoxes with infinite time? I have to disagree. But they kind of touch on it in that link I gave you. Maybe you'll have a rebuttle.

However, if the universe is infinite in size then your big bang has a problem. How could the universe go from the size of a period, to infinity in ANY amount of time. Unless time is infinite too, which creates more problems than it solves.

Quote:

Hmm. In this very thread, some weeks ago, you have made fun of Ran Man who used those very arguments for a young earth. Why are you now posting the same low-level stuff?



I made fun of ran man? I have to see this. I think there's a difference between giving someone a hard time, and making fun of them. But perhaps I also mistook his point, because I don't remember him using these as arguments for a young earth. The only similar event I remember is him trying to use the specific conditions of earth and all of that to prove that we were created.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."