I have some ideas, but I'm not so confident in them that I will be dogmatic about them. Nor will I disparage others for not having the same ideas.

Plus I chose to completely ignore your point to highlight your refusal to answer my question, which you still have not done. If this is indicative of the quality of your scientific objectivity, it casts serious doubt upon your assertions.

And I feel the arrogance. Again.

If you simply say it - I don't know the answer - the burden to be a know-it-all will be lifted from your shoulders. And maybe, just maybe, you will be more circumspect in the things you do know something about.

Do you know the mechanism God used to create the heaven and the earth, or how the Word was made flesh?

No, but the question is not relevant. Satan does not know either! But we can know about sin, and how it causes all creation to die, God have given us so MANY hints. The arrogance is in ignoring the evidence.

Fortunately, Satan is not our standard. So what he does or does not know is irrelevant.

What is relevant, however, is that you accept something by revelation, even though you are totally ignorant regarding its mechanism. So you should not be so appalled when others have the same attitude toward things God has revealed to them. It is much better to ask why they believe it than to demand a mechanism.

And please don't consider me arrogant for not treating your hints as iron-clad evidence. I know too much scientific history to trust it implicitly. Just ask Ptolemy and Newton.

My hints? How about EGW's hints? Do you forget our discussion of inheritance, you your claim of legal transfer of an estate for example, as the meaning of inheritance? Which does not fit what EGW was writing about at all.

Hints <> Evidence

So you don't like the terminology. Yes, it is evidence. God has given sufficient evidence, and it appeals to the reason. But God has not removed the possibility for doubt.

So say you. Have you done a double-blind experiment to prove your theory? That's the gold standard in the scientific world.

Your kidding, right? There are more types of studies than double blind. IN fact, some systems are so complex, that random, double-blind studies are impossible! Or how about epidemiological studies? Shall we do a double-blind experiment the next time an ebola outbreak happens to find the cause? Would that be even ethical? There are many different study types besides double-blind. Treatment studies can be blind or not blind. They can be double-blind or single blind. Then there are observational studies. They can be cohort prospective or retrospective. They can be case controlled, or cross-sectional. Gold standard?

There are certain observations which when made over and over, "hints" to the underlying problem. Is all disease caused by sin or not? If all disease is found the have the same underlying problem over and over, is that evidence or not?

I understood double blind studies are only used in cases where the subjects and the researchers could be influenced. One would not need to use a double blind study to determine if an herbicide is effective. I would therefore not call a double blind study a "gold standard".