The Nature of Scepticism

quote:

---

Yes, these people have refused to goas far as to agree that Genesis is correct about the Big Bang beginning, simply because they aare arguing there is no god.

---

You don't think the fact that your interpretation is grossly strained and owes far more to your (often mistaken) views of the current scientific consensus have rather more to do with it ?For instance, if the text is so vague that it could be read as referring to either the quark-gluon plasma closely following the Big Bang or the accretion disk that eventually became the Earth (both of which you have claimed for the same text), then it's hardly true to say that it accurately describes either one.

It seems that the main opposition to skepticism comes from people who are aggressively wrong. This opposition is clear evidence of the value and correctness of the skeptical position.

Not quite. For a claim to be falsifiable, there only needs to be a way to find out that it is false, if it is false. Scientific claims aren't proven in the absolute sense, but for other reasons.