You infer and assume, just like they do with the evolution theory, and then say they are right.
You are dead wrong, just like they are.
For me to be wrong, you'd have to know an objective test to distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.
But your evasion of that and the other questions make it that you don't.
Your pretense does you no credit.
And if you have a problem with the theory of evolution, that's not science's fault. Modern creationism starts in 1961 with Whitcomb and Morris and The Genesis Flood
, and in the intervening 57+ years 'creation science' has made not even one not even tiny weeny scientific scratch on the theory of evolution, even though it's their hated enemy.
If you want to argue against evolution, it's too late: evolution has been around as long as life has existed on this planet, that is, more than 3.5 bn years. If you want to argue against the theory of evolution, then you'll need to know some real science and to frame your argument honestly from examinable evidence. Oh, and you'll need to publish your results in a reputable journal of science ─ parish magazines don't count.
36 Then Gideon said to God, "If thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said, 37 behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor; if there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that thou wilt deliver Israel by my hand, as thou hast said." 38 And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, "Let not thy anger burn against me, let me speak but this once; pray, let me make trial only this once with the fleece; pray, let it be dry only on the fleece, and on all the ground let there be dew." 40 And God did so that night; for it was dry on the fleece only, and on all the ground there was dew.
You suggest that's an objective test? I take it you can refer me to papers in reputable journals of science verifying that it works, and that anyone can do it?
Or is it just an old bit of Bronze Age superstition in which we should expect to find the storyteller's art or the priest's manipulation or both?
I don't understand. You need to explain what you mean by satisfactory, real candidate, and how you would tell.
A candidate (a being or thing or phenomenon) will be real
if it has objective existence, that's to say, is not imaginary that's to say exists in the world external to the self independently of the concept of it in any brain. We determine that things are real by detecting them, either directly by the senses or with the help of instruments. The definition will be sufficient
if it states the defining real qualities of a god, such that we can objectively determine whether any real candidate is a god or not.
You'll have to read and study the Bible, and live it.
Why would I want to "live it"? It openly advocates and approves invasive war and the seizure of the lands and goods of others, it advocates massacres and mass rapes, slavery (it even sets out the rules for copulating with your slaves), the inferior status of women generally, human sacrifice, homophobia, murderous religious intolerance, and so on.
Are those the kinds of things you do on the weekend, "living" the bible?
Magic is not the same as what we call miracles. That's why they have different definitions.
Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, usually just by wishing.
Miracles are that subset of instances of magic which are done by a god.
Whether it's Harry saying 'Accio broom' or Yahweh saying 'Let there be light', reality is altered without recourse to physics according to the magician's wish.
Unfortunately, the number of authenticated instances of magic including of course miracles is nil.
Science doesn't test miracles.
For exactly the same reason it doesn't test unicorns: there aren't any.
However, because we are humans on a small planet,in a vast universe, and we have no knowledge of what lies beyond, it is the height of irrationality to think that we know what is impossible, from what is possible, and whether a rule of physics is breakable or not.
We have some knowledge of very deep space; and we don't claim to know what's impossible, though on the basis of available evidence we can rate some things as exquisitely unlikely. But so what? None of that implies the existence of unicorns.
If you read the Bible with such an obvious lack of understanding, then your questions will seem quite ridiculous. However, seeing that it is due to a lack of understanding...
Once again you fail, or refuse, to understand what a god who's real must entail. The gods of the bible are imaginary. That's why you can't show [him] or them to us. The supernatural is imaginary. That's why God can't heal amputees. Placebos are real, and curious, and the subject of study, both as to their use in mood control and apparently in triggering certain immune responses. Various studies have shown that outside the placebo aspect, prayer doesn't help, and sometimes hinders, the sick.
You need to study the Bible, if you really desire to understand it.
You need to educate yourself in science, not just evolutionary science.
And you need to read the bible with an outline knowledge of the relevant history and archaeology, and read the bible as ancient documents of people of a particular linked set of cultures at various times in various middle eastern places for various purposes. You also need to reflect on the fact that Yahweh doesn't appear in history till around 1500 BCE, and then as one of the gods in the Canaanite pantheon ─ all gods come from somewhere, and the present evidence suggests a southern desert tribe.
But as long as you continue to think of the bible as a book of spells and magic and (*chuckle
*) 21st century science, you'll never beat Harry's expelliamus