Did I miss something here you didn't present any decent evidence of Jesus existence to me.  The overwhelming evidence brought fourth in the last 20 years all supports the fact that Jesus never existed or at best he was just some regular guy that got turned into a legend after his death.  Anyway if you want some deep insides of how flawed Christianity is I'm not the guy to asked since I never considered myself to be true believer anyway I always believed that the Bible is nothing more then a loose collection of myth and fair tales and not a very good one either since it borrowed many of its myth from other religions.  I suggest you watch some videos from Seth Andrews.

Just to get this right.... your dig at Science is that it challenges the results to ensure the beliefs of science can be proven rather than just believing tales about someone with wine for blood passed on by illiterate people 2000 years ago and never changing any views regardless of how obviously flawed those views are?

This cleared it up for me, Science is awesome.

The point of my post is, yes, science is awesome, I agree, even though it didn't know that bacteria did exist and even though it was wrong a lot of times.

There's a limit to what science can see. They can see today a lot of things that they couldn't in the past. They still can't see God though.

Science do can be wrong and needs to correct itself all the time.

Thank you for the well written reply.

My point is: science can be wrong, science was wrong about a lot of subjects, science can be wrong today about a lot of things. Science couldn't see other planets, couldn't see atoms, couldn't see bacteria. Today they can see all of it. One day they may see God and when they see, they'll say, yeah God always existed, we couldn't see. Like atoms, it always existed, they couldn't see. Like human beings, they were always equal in its biology, but science thought that Africans/Asians were inferior anyway.

Yes, that's because new evidence and new studies can enlighten us. The purpose of science is to be malleable and change as new information comes to us. Without that, it's stagnant. Can science be wrong? Yes, it certainly can. However, the advent of the scientific method has gone to great lengths to minimize such inaccuracies and we've made leaps and bounds towards knowing what's around us. 

Religion, on the other hand, doesn't have any of that. It's rigid in its presentation of facts and yet up for interpretation from its believers. It brings nothing new to the table, doesn't allow new facts and evidence influence it, and demands respect while refusing to adapt with the times. 

Religion is your racist grandfather, set in his ways and convinced the world was better when black folk or women weren't given the same rights as white men. 

That's why religion has no place outside of ancient history class, and certainly no place next to science. 

The limit of science has a symbiosis with our own brain and how good we can consume and adapt an understanding of new information so that limit is actually a slow moving border and that is also why we constantly need to correct our past mistakes.

We cannot grasp how much time is needed to know everything and we most likely will never get there because we are so tiny in this great universe and beyond ,in science itself there exists a possibility of a godlike being but there are possibility's for almost everything.

The things you listed probably aren't actual science though. There's propably no peer reviewed, well researched and tested clain that wine is good for you or eggs are bad for you or white people are inherently superior ect most claims like that typically come from random jack asses or take an actual well researched idea and skews the facts to push a narrative. Scientists probably said something like there's a specific chemical in wine that is linked to good health then you get a hundred health blogs posting "wine is good for you" over and over again when the actual scientific fact is that it's only this 1 specific chemical that is loosely related to health in specific circumstances. As for climate change it's just the more accurate term. global warming isn't as simple as the entire world being 3 degrees hotter a rise of like .5 degrees in the artic circle can cause a snow storm in California, a drought in the rainforest, floods in africa ect. 

There is as much chance that Science invents some form of telescope that can see a man chilling out in the clouds in a robe as there is of them inventing a ray gun that fires one long stream of ginger kittens. You're hoping science fiction might find the man in the clouds someday, nothing else.

This logic leap though from "they were incorrect about X being good for you because they didn't know it could increase the chances of Y" is sort of like suggesting that a Kid corrected himself after getting ABC's wrong so at some stage in his life he might discover how to flap his arms and fly because he currently cannot and he has corrected shortcomings before.

Jesus Christ of Nazarath wasn't a real person. He's a complete work of fiction; as well as the Bible. Jesus Christ and everything about him was a Christian reinterpretation of the Egyptian Sun God, Horus.

Being born on December 25th, virgin birth, walking on water, 12 disciples, crucifixion, resurrection...all of it to be credited to Horus. Jesus Christ is just a plagiarization of Egyptian mythology...