(November 23, 2016 at 11:55 am)Tonus Wrote: Scientists start with observations. These do not require the assumption that God does or does not exist. They form hypotheses from those observations, which must be testable and falsifiable and must produce results consistent with the hypothesis in order to become a theory, which must do the same but with more rigorous standards.
Creationists start with the presupposition that God must exist and that the world bears the marks of his intervention and that any and every discovery, observation, hypothesis, and theory must take this into account. Not only are they biased every step of the way, they are obligated to reject any facts or theories that do not specifically credit the mythological accounts that they presuppose are 100% true. Because they begin from a basis that they admit cannot be tested or falsified they have no consensus on how to proceed, which is why they selectively accept science when they feel it supports their claims and then reject that same science if it refutes them.
Also, "historical/operational" science are bullshit terms defined specifically for convenience and, like any other creationist claim, are used or ignored as needed.
The Cosmological Argument proves God.
