Not at all. The existence of ovens is testable and falsifiable.
Your argument is akin to someone trying to understand the origin of a cake without ever having seen an oven. And when confronted with the idea, rejects it out of hand - because in their experience, ovens don't exist.
Since the existence of ovens (as opposed to God) is testable and falsifiable, such a conclusion would not be reached.
However, If God exists then Genesis is no longer a myth, it is a possibility - an answer. You can't say I'm studying biology, not God - if God is the source of all biology(!)
Maybe an invisible dragon is the source of all biology. See:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm
If you're taking it on faith, it's not science.
You might say that you accept that there is a god - just not the one that Genesis describes (he purposely created an illusion - not fair!). But how can you place constraints on a creator (how he is allowed to create)? "Can the pot say to the potter - 'why have you made me this way?'".
What illusion? In any case, there are no "sacred cows" in science. Anything can be questioned...which is just as it should be. If the evidence doesn't support an assertion, it should be rejected.
The Bible states that there is enough evidence in creation that points to the existence of God - and I for one accept this statement. Logic alone dictates that you don't get get the universe we see, life on this planet - as a result of blind luck and chance.
Logic dictates no such thing. Here's a list of logical fallacies commonly associated with those who reject evolution:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
You seem to be employing #7: Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable.
So you say "I reject Genesis". Well, I reject blind luck and chance. But I also assert that there is enough other truth in the Bible to give meaning and purpose to what we see in this world. The problem - what causes those who "know" - to stumble or at least stop - is that faith is required.
I think your argument falls completely apart at this point. You've been speaking about the definition of science, and you're now asserting that faith is required. Faith is the antithesis of science.
And all I can say is if you don't have faith - ask for it.
Why? The universe is being investigated by those who use the scientific method, and it works. Faith (for these purposes) doesn't.
God Bless
Thank you.
Isn't it rather silly to try separating the idea of God - a creator - from science?
Not at all. The existence of God is neither testable nor falsifiable.
At the risk of being argumentative, I'll restate: You can't say I'm studying biology, not God - if God is the source of all biology(!)
Your response (and link) Maybe an invisible dragon is the source of all biology is simply a straw man and is in truth a non-sequitur.
You responded later: What illusion?
This was perhaps not your claim, but the point has been made on this thread that if one were to accept the idea of a young earth, one would have to conclude that God was tricking us because starlight would have to have been artificially made.
In any case, there are no "sacred cows" in science. Anything can be questioned...which is just as it should be.
Does this include the claim that there is no creator?
If the evidence doesn't support an assertion, it should be rejected.
Agreed
Again I'll restate: You (apparently) reject Genesis. Well, I reject blind luck and chance. And again I'll lay claim to the logic of my position, simply because of the truly astronomical odds required that blind luck and chance brought us to this place and time.
Are you aware of an occasion or event where something (matter) came from nothing? If not, your position (imho) is illogical at best and unscientific at worst.
Grace.