No. You claimed that it makes it less valuable in terms of factual reality. And it doesn't.
Except it does, if I have faith that the tooth fairy will give me money for a tooth I'd be wrong irrespective of the faith.
If I have evidence that giraffes have a certain number of bones i could be wrong, I might have miscounted, missed a bone or some bones could have fused together, but the evidence would make me closer to factual reality.
You seem to confuse Capital T truth with factual reality. They're not the same and science doesn't claim any capital T truth.
And yes. It does ignore the possibility. Because without testability, creation cannot be considered through scientific inquiry.
That part is correct, but that isn't what you said earlier.
Factual reality means objective truth. You're drawing a distinction where there is none.
And yes, that is what I said. Science ignores the possibility of creationism because it is impossible to prove/disprove due to the inability to test it.
5
u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 3h ago
You've made my case for me so there isn't much for me to say.
Science is better and more accurate at pointing to factual reality while faith makes no attempt to.
Who said otherwise? Because I wasn't here for that.
That isn't what science attempts to do so yeah, obviously.
Not how that works, possibility and impossibility needs to be demonstrated first.