I will no longer answer you point by point because your are in denial.
You deny all evidence that is contrary to your belief but never produce contrary evidence.
Apologetics
≠ Scientific evidence.
Examples: you deny chimp empathy. No reason or contrary evidence for your denial. Dito chimp memory.
You continuously attack science that is contrary to your beliefs and scientists' work you dislike. Never an iota of evidence to back up your beliefs, you even fail to supply any links to sources for your opinions. You don't even give credit for where you get your opinions or apologetics.
You continue to harp on abiogeneis without the slightest understanding that it is a legitimate area of research. Again no source for your babbling that it's too complicated.
I have stated a dozen times I do not disagree that there are miraculous cures. If there is scientific evidence for eucharistic miricles I consider them in the same vein as spontaneous remission of cancer (SR)of cancers that which are backed up with scientific evidence.
I provided my sources of why
Forensic evidence ≠ Scientific evidence.
You deny it but fail to provide any legitimate sources to back up your denial. Following good practices for forensics dose not make forensics evidence scientific. You believe it does but are unable show any evidence for your belief.
Here it is again:
Forensic Science: Problems and Solutions
Through the examination of more than 360 DNA exonerations, the Innocence Project has seen many examples of problems in the foundation or application of forensic science, including: Unreliable or invalid forensic discipline. Studies
innocenceproject.org
Forensic science, or more specifically, problems in forensic science, contributes to many wrongful convictions, as seen in in nearly half (45%) of DNA exoneration cases and one-quarter (24%) of all exonerations in the United States.
The main reasons:
Unreliable or invalid forensic discipline.
Insufficient validation of a method.
Misleading testimony.
A second source:
How Scientific Is Forensic Science?
We like to think that physical evidence is a foolproof way to lock in a conviction. The problem is that forensic science isn't exactly a science.
daily.jstor.org
"We like to think that physical evidence is a foolproof way to lock in a conviction. The problem is that forensic science isn’t exactly a science."
And another:
Forensic Science Scientific? Crime lab errors and privacy issues raise concerns.
... new technologies can also mislead the public about how forensic science is actually practiced. Most forensic technicians work in local government crime labs that lack certification requirements, accreditation programs, or effective education opportunities for technicians. Major studies of forensic science have shown that many crime lab methods are unscientific and too often involve guesswork, contributing to false convictions. Meanwhile, privacy experts worry that genomic crime-fighting tools could be misused to surveil Americans who have never committed a crime or even taken a DNA test.
I am sure you will continue to deny the sources but you will fail to support your denial. I have no idea of why you think anyone would take your word for opinions you continuously fail to back up.