What @anon14261619 has cited is religious apologetics yet again using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Nothing is proved or disproved through a lack of evidence, thus the sentence science can’t disprove god, is the very definition of that logical fallacy, it’s a meaningless statement, and if it’s being used as a premise to arrive at a conclusion of belief then it is also the very definition of irrational.
We’ve done this to death, usually with theists who get the right raving hump, when you explain atheism isn’t an irrational response to a lack of evidence because atheism does not claim a deity does not exist, unlike theism which is a belief and therefore the affirmation of a claim.
Breezy used to spend hours pretending this wasn’t true.
Whatever happened to Breezy, after he was banned from here I was sure he’d dedicate himself full time to publishing the flaws in evolution he insisted he’d discovered.
I keep checking to see if evolution has been falsified, and he’s won a Nobel prize, but bafflingly it’s not happened?