We? You mean you, I think.
Wow. I was going to critique what you said but obviously you want to continue, even though I've shown all your inaccuracies. This also demonstrates how you think. I ask for verification and clarification, and you don’t seem to care.
I have just re-read Samantha's post and it seems crystal clear to me.
Then we agree to disagree.
It is simply an argument against the false dichotomy between science and religion that so many people seem to assume must exist.
They don't have to exist but they do
exist. No one said you have to believe in evolution or creationism, but if you;re going to believe the world/universe is 6000 years old, it'll be contrary to scientific evidence. So if you're a creationist, it's unlikely you believe in evolution. Do you understand that?
As for my sentence that you highlighted in bold, I am just saying that science does not settle the issue of the existence of God and saying this is not a controversial observation.
You're right it doesn't but that doesn't mean it could indirectly. Science examines the natural world(i.e. what can be verified) and there are a ton of stories in holy texts that gives examples of the supernatural(something unverifiable) influencing the natural world. Hence, if there is a claim, like prayer through god heals cancer, it can be tested. This cannot demonstrate a god exists but it's a step in the right direction.
I'd like to think that theists would jump at the chance if this was scientifically demonstrated. For instance, theists claim miracles all the time and attribute some entity did it. Yet, when these claims are tested, they return negligible.