Well, it's true...

Indeed

yes it does

Welcome to imgflip blizz_the_kid. If you have any questions about the platform, feel free to ask.

why are there so many memes about hating atheists?!?!?!?!

but there is a difference, science is based on studies and people test the theories that they come up with and see if it is true or false, science changes each day. religion, on the other hand, is based on what some people believed thousands of years ago and rarely changes.

What people believe about origins is based on their presuppositions concerning the unobservable past. No matter what the results of any modern scientific study, those people are going to interpret the results to fit their presuppositions about the past. Some go into the study with confirmation bias in order to confirm what they already presuppose about the past.
The past which can't be observed, tested, measured, and demonstrated that it was the way they claim it was.
Some people recognize their presuppositions as "faith" and some others call their presuppositions "scientific."

I concur that thousands of people can repeat the same tests and research that have the same results. The confirmation bias comes in when the people draw their conclusions from the same results based on their presuppositions, whether they are people of faith or secularists.

This is irrelevant to me based on my previous reply. We draw our conclusions based on our presuppositions when we look at the same results from modern methodology, equipment and research.

The difference between our beliefs and religious beliefs is that our beliefs don't require faith; they require evidence.

17ct7n.gif (click to show)
Like I said to blizz_the_kid...
What people believe about origins is based on their presuppositions concerning the unobservable past. No matter what the results of any modern scientific study (aka your "evidence"), those people are going to interpret the results ("evidence") to fit their presuppositions about the past. Some go into the study with confirmation bias in order to confirm what they already presuppose about the past.
The past which can't be observed, tested, measured, and demonstrated that it was the way they claim it was. (I've heard it said by atheists that origins and Darwinian evolution can only be "extrapolated" like origins and biology are mathematical formulas, when in reality the use of "extrapolate" is just an intelligent way of saying "conjecture" or "speculation.")
Some people recognize their presuppositions as "faith" and some others call their presuppositions "scientific."

If people with presuppositions about the past would interpret results and change their beliefs to fit the science, then what explains Creationists?
What does confirmation bias have to do with our science? The reason most of our scientists in our age are atheists is because they were either formerly religious, or the believers who could've beeen in our science field decided that they have the answers instead.
We still have plenty of objects to observe the past with: Stars, fossils, old documents, etc. Bringing about how unobservable the past is would be more of a history topic, rather than a science topic. (We can't minimize terms utilized for a study to mere nerd words.)
Those who recognize their presuppositions as faith are fine, until they start taking the idea that they're right against other people, which is what I see Christians on this site and in positions of power do all the time.

I never said anyone changes their beliefs to fit the science. They interpret the results of the science to fit their presuppositions, atheists and creationists do it. The science doesn't change. Very few creationists who are scientists have any problem with the methods that non-creationists scientists use. They only have a problem with the presuppositions that the non-creationists bring to the scientific method.
Here is a whole lists of scientists who are creationists near the top of this page https://creation.com/creation-scientists#alive
One of my favorites is astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle (age of the universe based on stars.)
When you mention observing the past with stars and fossils those are two fields in which the observer's presuppositions effect their observing/measuring. So the past is unobserveable and unmeasurable apart from ones presuppositions. That is why most creationists scientist differentiate between "historical science" and "operational science." You even recognize that the past has to do more with history.
People who call their presuppositions "science" as if their presups are "facts" are worse than the religious faithful who are "taking the idea that they're right against other people."