Those 'reasons' are misappropriated and open-ended. They do not support a belief in God. They are a supposition; you have chosen to suppose they mean God, but there is no reason to conclude this. Well, my points were very pertinent. If you believe in God, is that belief insufficient for you without naturalistic evidence? The issues you cite do not support your preconception. Neither are they a naturalistic representation of the idea you are propounding - a scientific basis for sin. Sin is not a naturalistic phenomenon, although guilt might be, as an emotion. You are attempting to build a sand castle using a paint set. The twain - science and faith - do not meet. I feel that it is a threat when 'Christian scientists' attempt to appropriate the tools of actual science for their own ends - there are many ignorant people in the world, and it does real science no good, as a field, when provocateurs try to achieve some kind of respectability for their core concepts among lay people using ideas they have misemployed for that very purpose. You dismiss the work of those far more knowledgeable than you as a 'house of cards', when in fact the evidence behind evolution represents the greatest mass of evidence that man has ever collected for a concept still called a 'theory'. There certainly is no 'house of cards' lest it be Christian science - on which rests the entirety of their self-identification. So many cards are missing, today, that Christian science stands erect only through force of will alone, and not on any objective appreciation of its strength. I don't want you to be booted from the forum, but you are attempting to locate support for your preconceptions using concepts that do not back you, and dismissing DWM - and genuine scientists - at the same time. These are, in my view, unacceptable. You are pursuing a religious perogative, not a scientific one. You have also attempted to engage in proselytisation here, which is not allowed. I recommend that you review available evidence on evolution and return with a less dismissive perspective on work in this area. 'House of cards', indeed.