So, because scientists invent answers for your questions about the distant past, without any hard evidence other than their prejudiced interpretations of data existing only in the present, then intelligent design must be false? Your conclusion is worthless and has zero to add to the discussion. Argument from Ignorance. Thanks for playing.
See? Works both ways.
No, a shameless substitution of words doesn't.
Your way relies on testimony. Science relies on experiment with evidence. In yours, you have to wonder if testimony is given by a nut, a liar, or a non tangible spirit. There is no way to know for sure. Science relies on concrete evidence with tests that can be duplicated by critics. This is a big difference.
No, a shameless substitution of words doesn't.
Your way relies on testimony. Science relies on experiment with evidence. In yours, you have to wonder if testimony is given by a nut, a liar, or a non tangible spirit. There is no way to know for sure. Science relies on concrete evidence with tests that can be duplicated by critics. This is a big difference.