God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?

[lucent]

Your entire post consisted of "science cannot explain this", or "the current theory does not fit our observations", now, laying aside the fact that I don't actually trust for one minute that anything even approaching a factual assessment of our knowledge or theories on these matters is actually being offered......at what point would science being wrong about this or that automatically default to your god? When you're asked to show evidence for your claims of gods existence, or of the the bibles innerrancy, provide evidence of god's existence, or the bible's innerrancy. Don't waste a single keystroke providing evidence for why this or that piece of scientific evidence is wrong. We can't both be right, but we can both be wrong. You have to make your own case. It cannot be made by criticizing the theory of another. If any given comet, just to take one example from your linktrash, is not billions of years old, how, exactly, is that proof of anything that is written in the bible? There's a quick answer, it isn't. I'm going to have to side with Chuck here, you have absolutely no idea what science is, or how it is done.

This is why I want you to adhere to a standard of evidence, because you're a dishonest debator. You said Genesis couldn't be true just by the reason of the "mountains of evidence" against it. So, I showed you some evidence which disputes the accounts of evolutionary astronomy. Now you critisize me for that, saying that poking holes in scientific theories doesn't prove anything. But actually it does prove something, that your statement about Genesis being proven conclusively untrue is false. So, you just critisized me for providing the evidence that you asked for. This is intellectually dishonest, and before we continue I want you to tell me what exactly your standard of evidence is, so that when I meet it you can't say it wasn't good enough, or continually shift the goal posts like you're doing here.

Also, science is science. If you want to say creationist scientists are biased then so are evolutionists and everything they say is automatic trash too. If you want to dispute a conclusion, prove its wrong.

And you don't understand what explanatory power means. I don't have to prove God to say the idea of God has explanatory power. Again, the hypothesis explains the cause of the Universe, consciousness, objective morality, origins, and every epistimological, metaphysical and ethical discipline. The existence of God is not in question here, it is only whether the theory fits the facts.

So, in short, "Nu uh" is not an argument. I think it is you who understands little about science; for instance, do you know that science doesn't actually prove anythiing is true? Do you understand that science is founded upon a series of unprovable philosophical assumptions called brute givens that cannot be tested or observed by science? Science does not work without these assumptions, so it relies on that which cannot be empirically proven. Yet, you wave your arms and shout that this is the definitive proof. Your scientism is a religion on its own, and evolution is the metaphysics which justifies it. You have quite a bit of faith for a non-believer.

.