Darwinism, Evolution by Natural Selection, and Athiesm is False and Un-scientific

Reply to:--Evolution is consistent-- My case is not against Evolution. Evolution is a loose term, easily applied to many different beliefs. We are in General agreeance of the fact that there is evidence to back up Evolution, but Evidence is not observation. We cannot in our lifetime observe Macro-Evolution to our Species, and therefore my argument stands that Macro-Evolution is not Science, but Philosophy.Reply to:--Evolution is Parsimonious--I would like to argue that by assuming that their is not a creator, we would also have to guess as to how our universe got here, and how life got here in the first place. It is not only Logical and the simplest explanation to say that their was a God, but it is also proven (arguably) by many after death experiences. I would also like to argue that the assumption of a God is not "New", Infact the Assumption of Evolution is New. I would also like to point out that the word "Unusual" Is relative. I could also say that your theory that Life came from Non-living objects is unusual.Reply to: -- Evolution is Useful--Again, My argument is not against Evolution, but Against Evolution without a God. But I would like to raise a question. You are so quick to tell of the need of Evolution to be able to explain the connection between Species, but where did this Living DNA come from in the first place? DNA is a piece of a living thing holding information, but previous to life in your theory, there was no Living Things, or Information. A Creator must have been there to create both the Information, and the Living thing.Reply to: -- Evolution Can Be Empirically Tested--Again, your Argument is not addressing my arguments. What you have described here is Micro-Evolution within a species. Cockroaches developing a toleration to a chemical, and Viruses finding new ways to infect people do not make them different species. My Argument was that Macro-Evolution can not be scientifically proven.Reply to: --Evolution is Based Upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments; is Falsifiable; and Correctable--Macro-Evolution is both Falsifiable and correctable, but Not testable. No one has been alive long enough to observe Macro-Evolution, and Tests can only prove Micro-Evolution, which is observable to mankind. Evolution is based on Logical assumptions based upon evidence of old Fossils, and stones (Not Controlled tests). Reply to: --Testing--Fossils can not be considered a "test", but are only evidence. A test must present observable results (Such as combining two chemicals to create a Third), but merely spotting multiple simple fossils does not present observable results. As far as we know, aliens could have eaten all the complex organisms way back when, only leaving the Simple ones. (My point is not that aliens exist, but that we cannot observe was happened in the past, but only estimate based on evidence).In Conclusion:Your Arguments did not address the Debate topic (I am not disproving Evolution), and my point stands that Macro-Evolution is not Testable, or Observable, and therefore isn't a scientific theory, but a philosophical assumption based on Evidence. In Addition, immediately marking a "creator" off the drawing board without proof of his non-existence is un-scientific. Here is my proof of a Creator's existence, even if Macro-Evolution can be a proven fact: Humans came from Monkeys. Monkeys came from some other Animal. Some Animal came From a fish. That Fish came from a Cell. But where did the First cell come from, knowing that Living cannot come from Un-living?