Which books written by humans should I trust? Science or Religious?

consumer reports.

they don't allow advertising.

In Literary Criticism Class, one learns that it is very easy to "break" an argument or find flaw in a story plot, idea, and or argument, if one reads the article in the weakest way possible. This is superficial fallacy finding.

But, if you truly want to prove something wrong, do your best to interpret the piece of work in the most valid or strongest way possible, even to the point of adding strength to the argument. THEN, if you can still find criticism, your "breaking" of the argument/story/plot/idea, is much more valid and cannot be easily dismissed.

So in getting to your question, many Christians downplay science to their own faith's disservice. But in the "strongest view of an argument process," I thought the following; Are science/evolution & Christianity/faith mutually exclusive realms?

I believe in God, the intelligent unknowable unified field for all detectable and undetectable phenomena in existence, past, present and future. I believe the "father/old man in heaven/universal parent/providence/" are all just analogies that help our as human beings understanding of an unfathomable entity.

When any analogy is stretched beyond a point, it becomes ridiculous, when at first it was enlightening. As in comparing obtaining goals to a race, an initial analogy can be helpful, but if you try to find additional analogies in all matters that can occur in a race (false starts, steroid use, proper shoes, stretching, etc) the original analogy falls apart.

BUT, here is my analogy of GOD & EVOLUTION. A master artist is married to a professional photographer. As the artist paints, the photographer enters once an hour to take a picture of what is on the canvas. After six days of steady work, a beautiful picture of the mountain range with numerous animals, a stream and a village full of people is completed. But the photographer has several dozen pictures of the work in progress. Each photo is complete in itself, but not as a complete representation of the artists final work on canvas.

Just like an artist does not "blink" a complete work onto page, the artist work evolves into its final form by the artist over time.

The ones with the most evidence supporting them.

Mistrust arguments from authority. Authorities have been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future.

All that matters is the evidence, and the reasoning behind the claims made. To determine this, you need to have both skeptical AND open minded habits of thought; you must be able to critically examine the evidence presented, but also be open enough to concede a correct argument, to consider a new idea or to entertain the possibility you may be wrong.

This is how scientific thinking works.

What seems more trustworthy?

1. A 2000 year old book with claims of miracles, burning bushes, virgin births, etc.

2. The consensus of thousands of scientists using the latest techniques and following a fact-driven process to determine truth, and to modify it as new information becomes available.

You can make you own observations and prove the facts in a science book you can not with any religious text. logic and reason are on the side of science religious text is in riddles and parables and based on event that can not possible happen. take you pick chose facts or myths it is a free choice

Let me put it this way: The Bible has been the same since it was written. Science books change every year. Which one is more trustworthy should be obvious.

Well, you certainly can't trust science books, they have lots of faults. They tell you what people want to believe, not what really happened. The Bible is the only book that doesn't have anything wrong about it...it can be misread though. I chose to believe what the Bible tells me because I see that it is true.

I don't hardly see facts as inaccurate assumptions...

Brilliant...I guess you're going to have to use common sense. Why are you asking others? Trust yourself.