Coyote writes:
Don't forget contradictory evidence. It takes very little contradictory evidence to disprove an idea or belief -- or a theory.
Of course, you do mean the
debatable evidence, debatable relative to the thesis premise which determines the application of that evidence.
No, I mean contradictory evidence. The fact that you are willing to debate anything you disagree with has no bearing on the validity of that evidence.
Face it, various religious tenets can be falsified with very little contradictory evidence, but the contradictory evidence for many is overwhelming. Just look at the young earth belief and belief in a recent global flood. Those two ideas have been disproved by the contradictory evidence. Debate all you want, but that's the bottom line.
The more corroborating non-contradictory evidence supportive to a given religion, the more ligitimate it becomes.
And to get that state of "ligitimacy" [sic] you simply ignore, deny, or misrepresent all of the contradictory evidence. That might make for good apologetics (e.g., creation "science"), but it is both dishonest and the antithesis of actual science.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
