Science makes Atheism hard to believe

It does apply to reality. Dr. Gates (the guy you cited) himself only went so far as to say, "If you believe in that description, I can show you the presence of those codes,""If" is a word that prefaces a conditional statement in this case. It was in the video you sent me around the two-minute mark. Berlinski was a researcher in molecular biology at Columbia University, and was a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France. What I meant was that he has no degrees in science (hence "philosopher by education"), but I admit that it was my fault for not articulating that better. Darwinian theory is still theoretical. I don't think you read the definition of theory that I gave. It is to most atheists as I've already cited. It doesn't matter if most atheists believe it. That doesn't make it a core part of atheism. What you're doing is just like saying that since most atheists believe in germ theory, germ theory is a core belief of atheism. It's not true. There's exactly one aspect of a person within the purview of atheism, and that's whether or not they believe in a god. This statement is like saying the Sermon on the Mount is not a core part of ChristianityI was under the impression that a Christian was a person who believed in all the teachings of Christ, at least. I could be wrong, but I'm confident that the percentage of Christians that adhere to that Sermon on the Mount is much higher than 80%. Probably higher than 95%. At any rate, the difference is that the Sermon on the Mount directly addresses a subject within the purview of the term "Christian," (namely philosophical beliefs about Jesus), whereas evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. or the Shahada is not a core part of Islam because not ALL espouse to itYou realize that the Shahada is the statement, "There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God," right? If you don't believe that, you're not a Muslim. Full stop. In fact, according to this website (http://www.islamreligion.com...), that's the only thing you have to do to convert to Islam: "These Arabic words mean, 'There is no true god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger (Prophet) of God.' Once a person says the Testimony of Faith with conviction and understanding its meaning, then he/she has become a Muslim." Bad example. Change in kind: "For a dog to show attributes outside of the construct of K-9. For a dog to begat characteristics that are not doglike." That's not a definition that is of any use. How do you define "doglike"? Traits found only in dogs? So for a dog to, say, have a yellow nose, would be a change in kind? What level in the hierarchy of classification do we use to define this? Would a lion changing to have non-leonine characteristics be a change in kind, or would it have to have non-feline characteristics? Or would we have to climb all the way to non carnivore-ine (I tried) characteristics? I could say that a frog changing to have non froglike characteristics would be a change in kind, but you could say, "No, it needs to have non-amphibious characteristics," and nobody would have any way to objectively verify because you gave a vague and almost useless definition. Also I'm not entirely sure what "the construct of K-9," is. I assume you meant "canine," because K-9 is the name for a police unit, but even "canine" doesn't help. There's the family Canidae, the sub-family Caninae, and the genus Canis that could all be what you're referring to. All around, that's just a bad definition. Con is fine with ignorance.In many cases where the answer cannot be known for certain, admitting ignorance is the mature option when compared to believing what you want to or just believing whatever happens to be the first answer you hear. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I'm not sure what it has to do with the debate. Infinity = "all possible things available to Darwinism" Not sure where you're getting this definition from.If it does not exist, that would give atheism no explanation for life and lean us heavily towards intelligent design from outside of the construct of our reality. Or, as I've said this whole time, one can admit that he or she does not know, then either try to figure it out or move on with life. I don't understand why you keep insinuating (more like explicitly saying, if I'm being honest) that people have to have explanations for everything in their belief system somewhere. In a case where the answer is unattainable or not readily attainable, sometimes that's the best and only intellectually honest option. It's not an answer, but simply withholding judgment. (Ironically, Darwinism fails the scientific method: cannot be observed, tested, measured...)It can be tested because evolutionary theory makes predictions about the past that can be tested. For example, it predicts a generally ordered fossil record, that organisms accumulate many, many mutations over the course of generations, and that those animals most well-suited to thrive in an environment will survive at a higher rate and pass on their advantageous traits to offspring. Depending on what you mean by observed, it can arguably also be observed. The evidence can, such as fossils, and the underlying processes behind natural selection have been readily observed (which I know you can't deny). All that follows is the inference that these processes take place whenever there is life and a scarcity of resources. It can be tested and falsified. For example, if you were to find a violation in the nested hierarchies of the phylogenetic tree, whether in traits or in something like endogenous retroviruses, it would be largely falsified. If you could find a fossil of a tetrapod in pre-Cambrian rocks, many aspects would be falsified. If you could demonstrate that animals occasionally give birth to drastically genetically different animals to themselves, the very premise of evolution would be disproven. "String theory is also not a well-established theory of reality. Even calling it a theory is a travesty of language." (Citation needed)"String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth."-(https://www.edge.org...)"If these partners [a concept having to do with supersymmetry, a concept in string "theory"] continue to elude detection, then we may never know whether they exist. Proponents could always claim that the particles' masses are higher than the energies probed."-(http://www.nature.com...)There's controversy within the community of theoretical physicists about whether anything string theory predicts can even be detected or measured in our reality. The Fermi Paradox, based off of the Drake Equation states that by probability alone, just our small piece of the galaxy should be teaming [sic] with intelligent life if Darwinism is true. I have never heard the claim that the Fermi Paradox dictates that our galaxy should be teeming with life at all, let alone intelligent life. The conditions required for life to form could be very rare in the universe (an idea I'd have thought a creationist like yourself would agree with), meaning that life forms only rarely and far between. It could be that, over the vastness of the universe, only a couple billion or million planets have ever achieved life at all. Of those, few were likely to have sustained life long enough to allow it to reach our level of intelligence and be detectable. If you want more possible solutions to the Fermi Paradox, check here: (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Your assertion that it can't be answered is lightyears beyond premature. Have you any proof that no life exists anywhere else?