My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[Angrboda]

So we are only to assume that a thing had a maker if we have had previous experience in having observed such thing being made? Such as, since we see a house, we know that there was an architect and builder, because there always is one. So then, we are to assume, that if we see things that exist, and have not had the experience of having observed it come into being, that that thing did not have a maker? Do we have to observe a new universe being made in order to be able to evaluate the situation, and therefore determine it if indeed had a maker, and what the nature of that maker is? 

That's a straw man. Neither I nor Hume said or implied any such thing.

I agree that it is scientific to make assumptions based on observations. But if the coming into being of universe has not been observed (which it has not been), how can we make any type of postulation as to its origin and call that postulation scientific? There is no observation when it comes to origin, therefore there can be no science. I don't think observation has been taken out of the scientific process yet has it? So if something has to be observed in order to make scientific postulations, then origin cannot be spoken of on a scientific basis. 

Giddyup! Straw horsey!

Origin can only spoken of on a basis of conjecture and belief. 
However, the belief about the origin can and should be based on observation of the things that exist. If a belief states that evolution took place in order for the things that exist today to have come to be the way they are now, then it would make sense that that belief and statement would be based on having observed such things occur. If nothing has ever been observed to have evolved (species to species, not adaptation within kind), then how can it be a scientific statement? It can still be a belief. Anything can be believed. But without observation, how can a belief be said to be scientific?
Origin has not been observed, so any statement about it is a belief. Evolution has not been observed, so any statement about it is also a belief.

Evolution is based on inferences made from present day observations. Now you're just spinning the typical creationist horseshit about the difference between "observational science" and "historical science." Not to mention that this has fuckall to do with either Hume's points or your original argument.

God having created the universe is also a belief, since none of us observed Him doing it. But if anyone were to say that they don't believe God created the universe because no one observed it happen, and therefore there is no evidence for it, how could they also say that evolution is a scientific fact even though no one has observed that either?

Now in the biblical account, it is said that God made things to reproduce after their own kind, and that is what we do observe. Evolution requires everything to reproduce after a different kind, which no one has ever observed. So based on the observable evidence, I think it is more reasonable to believe an account that can be readily observed on a daily basis all over the world in every aspect of life, than something that has never been observed by anyone in the history of mankind.
But again, either way, it is just a belief.

*bzzzt* Wrong answer!