Christian answering questions.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You know, I'm still thinking about my earlier comment about the murderers in prison...

We use science (called forensic science) to determine what happened at a crime scene. From DNA tests to footprint analysis to bullet trajectories, and so on and so forth, science gives us highly precise information that forms a good basis for a conviction, if it can be tied to the Accused.

We also use eyewitness testimony to put people away. Christianity relies almost entirely on "eyewitness" testimony (really it's hearsay, since we're pretty damned sure Moses didn't actually write the Pentateuch, none of the authors of the Gospels are the men after whom they are titled, and Paul never actually met Jesus) in order to try to establish its case.

When people are exonerated and released from prison because of the work of scientists who produce evidence that shows they could not have done the crime, in almost literally every case you will find that the person was convicted based upon eyewitness testimony. In almost none of those cases were the eyewitnesses trying to put an innocent man in jail, yet it happens all the time. Eyewitness testimony, when weighed against scientific testing, is next to useless.

But somehow, when it comes to discussions of religion, these people who have wholly swallowed the (secondhand) "eyewitness" testimony that establishes their entire claim will adamantly reject any scientific evidence that proves their claims are inaccurate.

And it never occurs to them that this is a problem. They just go on making up silly shit--either inventing bogus ideas about how science works and what it claims, or producing ad hoc explanations of why their mythologies (like the flood) really happened, even when they don't comport with the most elementary understanding of physics--rather than admit they have "convicted" themselves based on weak evidence.