First, I don't think I said religious science is false, I just said that religious doctrine is not investigated through prospective collection of data.
Second, scientists with religious faith virtually never apply the scientific method to testing their own religious beliefs. This demonstrates, to me at least, the fundamental difference between science (testable hypotheses) and religion (faith based belief, no evidence needed beyond scripture and none rigorously sought).
Third, you seem to consider religious thinking, which I agree can be highly rigorous, to be similar to evidence based hypothesis driven science. I do not equate these. I believe you referred earlier to evidence that there were two dinosaurs on Noah's Arc. That is probably a testable hypothesis if you accept any of the science of paleontology. To my knowledge there have never been dinosaur fossils found mixed with modern mammal fossils or bones and the two are never found in geologically similar strata with regard to time. Also, in case you prefer chemistry to paleontology evidence, I don't believe there is any carbon dating evidence that shows any of Noah's mammals were extant at the same time as dinosaurs. Those are at least three pretty important points to consider (and require refutation) if you think dinosaurs (other than chickens) were aboard the Arc.
Fourth, I have not called you any of the names you suggest. The basis of my initial question was the juxtaposition of a faith based assertion (dinosaurs on Noah's Arc) being raised as evidence relevant to a climate change discussion. It seemed odd that dinosaurs were accepted as a matter of faith while many of the participants in this discussion appear to deny the validity of scientifically collected climate data. You say I am biased but I just asked a question. To rephrase it: Are climate data and dinosaurs on Noah's Arc both verifiable through scientific testing or not? If they are discordant in this way then I'd say that Noah's Arc beliefs are fundamentally different from experimentally collected climate data. One belongs in a Sunday school discussion and the other belongs in a public policy debate. We do not (should not!) develop public policy on unverifiable faith based science.
I have a different view from yours, so u may have a hard time hearing me. That said, science is not magical. It's not even English. It is a transliterated word... translated it would be "knowledge". The concept of the thread, is theory. Not knowledge. The global warming/cooling/climate change debate... is just that. A debate. It is not a hard science. Same for evolution. Theories. Ideas. Wonderments... Faith, even. You have yours. I have mine.
Your statement: "Second, scientists with religious faith
virtually never apply the scientific method to testing their own religious beliefs." Can u show me the data that verifies your belief, in that sentence? From your belief, there, you arrived at a conclusion... "This demonstrates, to me at least, the fundamental difference between science (testable hypotheses) and religion (faith based belief, no evidence needed beyond scripture and none rigorously sought)."
"I believe you referred earlier to evidence that there were two dinosaurs on Noah's Arc."
We have exchanged, what... 3 posts? And u do not accurately know what I said, and u could have easily scrolled up the computer screen to know for sure. But, alas, you did not. I do not think the dinosaurs were on the ark. I think they were wiped out in the flood. My post on that was very short, and, I thought, very clear. But...you did not "know" (scientia) even my short post, from mere moments ago.
"Are climate data and dinosaurs on Noah's Arc both verifiable through scientific testing or not?" That depends. For both subjects, the data would have to be purely, truthfully, unbiasedly collected. For both subjects, that is debated. Do I think I will change your thinking? no. But, I will say this... The Bible is proved in many areas:
Literary validity testing. As u would test works of shakespeare, etc... u can test the Bible for literary historical credability.
Historical testing. There are cultures mentioned in the Bible who were thought to be mythical, until the cultural remains were discovered.
Archeological testing. Where the Bible refers to cities or events long gone, they are found, when digging based on biblical location references.
Researching the Noaic flood.
Amazon.com: Mount St. Helens: Seeing Noah's Flood Through Geology: Dr. Steve Austin, Kyle Justice: Amazon Instant Video
Assumption of TIME in evolutionary theory.
Mount St. Helens by Steve Austin - YouTube
I have seen the full length video, though it has been a while. It is a useful tool for researching the opposing view, from the one you hold.
"One belongs in a Sunday school discussion and the other belongs in a public policy debate. We do not (should not!) develop public policy on unverifiable faith based science." That quote sums up many of the world's troubles. It is a presuppositional assumption. Such an attitude will destroy true science. Knowledge is cast down by assumption... not learned.
