Please practice what you preach and spend less time telling me how to argue my side and more time addressing your own little difficulties. As for how much you were enjoying it, that might be because I've been the one posting all the evidence as you sat and airily waved it all away. Not much work in being an ignoramus, demanding various broomsticks being brought to you and then doing "maybe-counting" on the replies.
1. I believe there is much about the natural / supernatural world that is unknown and unexplained. But that does not discount it's existence.
Supernatural? Remember, you're not religious. But you're ... what? Superstitious? No God, but demons and magic and spells? What? Why do we need supernatural explanations? Oh! Right! Because we're running marathons of denial to sweep the 150 years of accumulated evidence for evolution under the rug.
2. I cannot begin to tell you how many facts that scientists have given us in just my lifetime that have eventually been contradicted or disproved.
Science makes revisions in a process of converging upon an increasingly accurate description of nature. That's one way it's not religion. It follows evidence and changes its collective mind to accomodate new evidence as such is uncovered. Furthermore, it actively seeks new evidence as part of this process.
The activities of all evolution deniers, whether they admit to being motivated by religious horror or not, do not look at all like this. They typically cannot admit error above the typo level and will tap dance about publicly in a transparently dishonest fashion--adults behaving badly--rather than admit anything when caught out. More to the point, they have no actual curiosity about how the world works. That, after all, is what they think they already know. It is just necessary to destroy "the competing worldview," or whatever.
Example. A group of scientists does some real research, learning something in the process. They publish their findings in Nature and announce them in a press release.
Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, the War Room of the ID movement, gets wind of the announcement and fires off a press release in rebuttal. It becomes clear in the aftermath that he was utterly unfamiliar with the design of the study and what it had in fact established. He just knew that his side needed to fire out a rebuttal ASAP because that's how Carville and Stephanopolis ran the Clinton War Room in 1992.
Science actually tries to learn something. The UN-Discovery Institute and the rest of UN-science tries to UN-learn it. They don't do a study. They may not even read the study that was done. They just sit down and type up a screed in rebuttal.
One of the two is doing something by which one may actually increase the sum total of human knowledge of the world. The other is frantically working to sabotage the first.
3. It is illogical to me that any "Intelligent Designer" would condemn a soul to hell based on where or to whom they were born.
This seems to belong to some other conversation somewhere. You're not doing very well in the lucidity department. I have not discussed Hell or the afterlife, nor do those concepts fit neatly into whether evolution has occurred. Try to remember that it's your story, not mine, that you're not religious.
4. I must admit that I am not a scientist. I have only three letters after my name, none of which is a 'd'.
Hey! No Shiite, Sherlock! But somehow you know the science since 1859 as practiced by the people who studied for careers in science is all wrong.
That being said, you and others of your ilk try to convince me that we have verifiable evidence that traces human life back to an amoeba sans flagella or earlier. Then I see the professor later say no, no, we never said we can trace all life to a single source, all we are saying is that man evolved from apes (or something similar).
You don't do a very good job of recapitulating the other side's arguments. That would look bad even if you had no other problems. Yes, humans evolved from apes. No, that's not all we are saying.
Those are the kind of contradictions that give me pause.
You are inventing your own contradictions with your pig-ignorant strawmanning. I seriously doubt that such is the origin of your willingness to bend at the waist backward to deny the evidence of science.
Do I eat salt or not? Did aliens visit the Aztecs and draw those things on the ground or not? What about black holes, worm holes, global warming, extinctions, yada yada yada?
What indeed?
There are all kinds of "scientists" trying to tell me "I just don't know enough about the subject material" if I don't buy their interpretation of events. I even read some Darwinists on this or some similar thread put those who believe the scientific proof of global warming along with Creationists, Palmists, and country music lovers.
Science converges upon an increasingly accurate description of nature. Thus far, it works. Stay as militantly confused as you wish.
Scientists are people with biases just like priests, imams, monks, etc. that are trying to explain unexplainable events. So as long as I'm getting multiple versions and interpretations of the same evidence by different scientists and/or clerics, I can only assume it is the training or the bias influencing the results.
See my response just above.
You are militantly unacquainted with what evolution says and what the evidence is. You so far appear innocent of any exposure to logic. As for you having a bias, you have denied that any bias is religious in nature, which is rather odd in one who does not accept common descent. As already pointed out, common descent and some kind of separate creation really are a logical dichotomy.
You're phoney through and through, sorry. Learn to spell ID.