they dont give answers, they just assert and speculate.
some scientific answers are as strange as any religious ones, but the difference is that scientific answers
just work.
it seems you christans dont care about whats true, you only care about being comforted.
neuroscience suggests that you do not survive your own death, but christians and some other religious people dont like that at all, its too bleak. So they come up with some paradise where you go when you die.
you seem to believe that god would make the entire universe and place his chosen race on a typical planet, around a typical star, in the outskirts of a typical galexy.
you're like a child that believes the whole world revolves around them, and disappears when he closes his eyes. Grow up.
you're wrong there, i can present a counterexample
we have built a time machine to actually see what happened then.
its called the telescope.
light from distant objects take many years to get to us, when we look at the most distant things, we're actually looking back in time.
some light started its journey 13 billion years ago.
so there
thats wrong because some theories have more to back them up then others.
with your logic, the theory that the USA was founded by chickens would be on equal footing with the theory that it was founded by Benjamin Franklin and the rest of them.
but the chicken theory has very little backup, especially since the signature at the bottom of that page says 'B. Franklin' or something.
so that makes the rest of your point invalid.
ask yourself if your theory works.
in the same way that the heliocentric theory works better then the geocentric theory, scientific theorys work better then religious ones.
this is wrong, and it also has nothing to do with your follow up.
just because there was one particalar scientific revolution does not show that all science will be overthrown as you're suggesting.
and since we're on the subject,
Newton's laws showed some cracks many years before Einstine, they failed to accuratly predict the orbit of mercury for example.
also, Maxwell's electromagnetic equations contradicted Newton's equations of motion when applied to light. (i.e. Newton says you can catch and overtake light if you travel fast enough, Maxwell says you can never do this)
well you're wrong,
religious answers have flaws that scientific answers do not.
the universe is expanding, religious answers cannot explain that because they suggest god made the universe X years ago and it has not changed since then.
but the biggest flaw with religious answers is that they start with the answer and then try to make it fit the evidence.
it should go the other way around.
scientists saw the expanding universe and concluded that in the past it must have been smaller then today. The volume of the universe is increasing.
so was there a point when it was as small as it gets? when the volume was zero?
taking only the expanding universe figures, some simple maths shows that the universe had zero volume around 13.6 billion years ago.
so you see that method? you start with evidence and observation
1. the universe is expanding
and then use it to come up with a theory that explains it
2. the universe started from an event called the big bang
this flowchart shows the differences quite nicely