True enough, science proves many things are false, but science has the limitations of being interpeted by humans, which do have their failings. Science is only as good as the guy/gal testing the data. The conclusion is we certainly don't have enough evidence to talk in absolutes about much of anything in regard to the Universe and it's inner workings.
Science proves that science is true using definitions and procedures provided by... wait for it... science! This is not to say science isn't useful.
Can't the same thing be said about faith? That religious beliefs are only as valid as the flawed humans who arbitrarily choose to believe them? However, unlike science, such arbitrary beliefs don't even meet the limited cognitive tests available to us flawed humans. Therefore such arbitrary beliefs are lower on the ordinal scale of human comprehension of validity, however limited such human comprehension may be. Stated differently, blind faith is the dim-witted alternative to reason.
The scientific method works something like this: 1. Collect data by observation and/or experimentation. 2. Form a hypothesis about that. 3. Test it. 4. Predict. 5. See if your prediction pans out.
Absolutely! I only argue that our current methods of testing things in regard to the Universe and any possibility of a Creator has it's limitations. One could conclude we've yet to develop the proper method(s) to test for such things. After nearly 100 pages in this thread I've seen nothing that make me change my opinion expressed in my first post...pot, meet kettle. Many people with many ideas, but for one group to call the others ideas absurd is well, absurd, all things considered.
if you love science why are you so illinformed about science? you seem not to understand anything about the scientific method.
So essentially you are saying your personal faith is superior to the personal faith of another person?