RE: Christians shouldn't mince words with Science.
"Perfect. So, the rest of reality is outside the reach of science... ...Doesn't mean tThey've already labeled the accounts as "supernatural" and moved on."
Logically fallacious argument. Typical for persistent supporter of creationism.
If scientists encounter an alien life form and technology, they have direct evidence which they can measure.
Fantastical (paranomral) stories in Bible are not supported by laws of nature.
Story of Jesus has little credibility - dozens of popular historians who lived around that time did not record existence of such person, while only few claimed his existence (his apostles).
"Historical and operational science"
Source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_and_operational_science
"Historical science" vs. "experimental science"
https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/historical-science-vs-experimental-science
“Observational” vs. “historical” science? Pure bunk!
http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/02/26/observational-vs-historical-bunk/
I finish this debate now.
There is no point in having conversation and trying to explain how science works and how evidence works to someone who values his personal believes more than science and evidence.~
Good luck.
I agree. It's like talking to a brick wall.
You keep coming back to defending science which I have never criticized.
My only point has been that there are other ways of knowing things.
Most of everything we know individually is based on our faith in the source of that information. Almost no one uses science, although many use faith in scientists, or faith in articles about publications by scientists funded by governments with a secular agenda...
Take the "science" of global warming for instance. There is a nice consensus among those who have been able to get government funding. Whole political parties place their faith in that. :o)