@Black-Jesus He probably wants to fuck everyone over after getting his ego hurt debating religion and science. It's the same sort of thing as the Grand Mufti banning chess because apparently it's waste of time.
<rant> Ok, this is my endgame here. So "truth", the truth is certain, evidence and proof are two different things. You could be all like "but my mathematical function is always right" but it is not certain, demonstratiin proves nothing, proof proves, so enter the mathematical proof. Boom. Certainty. Just because you can describe something correctly with somethng doesn't mean anything. Don't get me wrong, almost all of science is very very likely to be true, but think more Descartes evil demon. Say you have a log, you can assume it is all wood but nope, it has been hallowed out by bugs. You can't be certain about anything without proof. Nobody has a recording of the big bang, obviously, but that doesn't mean it isn't true, but really? Some "big bang"? Just because something is rediculous doesn't mean it didn't happen. Car crash, texting? Nope, a dog jumped through the steering wheel (heard a story recently). Now chistianity and stuff, there is no evidence, only logic. You can pull up stuff for evidence of christianity, but with logic comes arguments comes proof. Now, evidence (science produces evidence from logic) vs logic. You can't logically prove global warming without physics on an atomic level, that would be the proof, but no, we have evidence, photographs, readings... There is an illusion and it can be proved with two simple google searches, arguments for christianity and arguments for the big bang. You can pull anything you want but the arguments for christianity completely blow the big bang out of the water in bothh numbers and strength. We are looking at a perfect law of the universe versus us figuring out something that happened billions and billions of years ago. We have powerful logical reasons versus a very powerful set of observations. But how powerful are those observations? We have readings of radiation, ok, but then for any other evidence it is openly admited that we still have work to do and don't understand things like dark matter or whatever completely. Tell me, what is more reasonable here? What is more likely to be the truth? </rant>