“Engineers can learn a great deal from studying today’s copies of the biological systems that were created roughly 6,000 years ago.”
Do you agree with that statement (and all it implies)?
No it isn't. You said that all claims of the supernatural were invented by people, and I asked you to back it up.
So far, you haven't backed up your statement, nor have you retracted, nor have you given additional information.
Let's go back to the original claim:“Engineers can learn a great deal from studying today’s copies of the biological systems that were created roughly 6,000 years ago.”
Do you agree with that statement (and all it implies)?
"I agree that engineers can learn a great deal from studying today's copies of biological systems..."
Otherwise, why have biochemists or molecular biology, or kinesiology?
"...that were created roughly 6,000 years ago."
I don't know if they were created roughly 6,000 years ago or not. There are a number of non-trivial problems involved in this.
If you are referring to Genesis, then you have to consider:
a) whether God exists
b) whether God inspired Genesis
c) if Genesis was intended literally
d) if Genesis was intended as allegorical, metaphorical, or as a legend to instill moral values
e) if Genesis is still in substantially the same form as originally
f) if Genesis *was* meant as literal, whether or not we know the state the Universe was created in (brand new, or with some supernovae, old stars, bones, etc. spotted in here or there already)
g) what, if any effect the Fall of Man, or even (see Tolkein) the fall of Lucifer had on the material world
h) Whether or not any supernatural agents screwed around with the original blueprints, or the appearance of things after the fact, or interfered unpredictably with the laws of nature in the meantime
Only if we have a straight run of "yes" or "no" answers to most or all of these, does the answer come out as the strawman characterizations so prevalent on crevo threads--and which I assume you were waiting with bated breath to skewer me on.
And of course, you then have the hermeneutic problems of falsifiability, the uniformity of the laws of nature (correleation necessarily implies causation, or "empirical induction") and methodological vs. philosophical naturalism to muck up the water.
Cheers!