I'm done. There is no point in exchanging with people who resort to insult. No future posts from me.
One would also wonder what the point is in exchanging with people whose response to all evidence posted is essentially, "You can't make me see!"
However there are plenty of lurkers. They can see who provides evidence, and who dismisses it with an airy handwave while refusing to address its substance. They can form their own conclusions from that behaviour.
When and how have I insulted you?
You are in the right forum to argue the case that evolution et al (except for math and physics) are derived from the philosophy of naturalism and thus cannot form a complete picture and perhaps may even form deceptively erroneous pictures simply because they refuse to look.
Naturalism is a choice these disciplines of science make because they presume that anything that can be known will be physical or natural (methodological naturalism.)
It is a choice, a philosophy and nothing more. When a discipline declines to look at the non-spatial, non-temporal, non-corporeals (such as God, spirit, soul, conscience, mind, information or successful communication, autonomy, forms, geometry and other mathematical structures, qualia such as likes and dislikes) - it should not then be declaring that "all that exists" is all that it considers (microscope to telescope, matter in all its motions.)
And when that is the assertion it amounts to no more than a sleight of hand.
Give it a good thrashing right here on the Religion Forum! “All that there is” is not microscope to telescope.
After all, encouraging science to abandon the presupposition of "methodological naturalism" was the original goal of the intelligent design movement.