If that's the case then what exactly is the issue with asking someone making a religious claim for scientific proof of said claim?

Also what's up with this statement

"I'm not into trying to prove that God exists in this thread, but saying that many take science like it's the Word of Truth, exactly like Christians take Jesus word like Word of Truth."

if the two aren't just as valid means of finding out the truth then why is taking scientific consensus as the best understanding of the world around us the same as Christians taking Jesus word to be truth?

Because science is not absolute, even with consensus.

Besides, there's no scientific paper saying that God doesn't exist. There's none saying it exists either, but people can't just say "I believe in this because science says so". That's the attitude I'm trying to go against here.

It's not only about God, it's about anything. When someone tells me I'm stopping eating this because it's bad because science says so, I always reply with how many times science went wrong.

It is the responsibility of the one making the claims to back them up with evidence, when asked. Can you link to these numerous studies saying that butter is bad for you, and vegetable oil is good for you? Can you show that said stance, was a view held by the overwhelming majority of scientists at any given time? Can you link to the ice age and global cooling theories? Yes, I can look them up if I want, but I can look up a lot of things on google, that are flat out false. Remember it is your responsibility to back up your own claims, and I would happily do the same if asked by you. 

As for the disease example; Yes, that's how science works. We didn't know about something, then made a discovery, and corrected ourselves. That is how science works. 

You've misunderstood what I'm saying. We didn't know about something =/= science told us the opposite. Before germ theory there were zero scientific theories for the cause of disease that withstood scientific testing and scrutiny. Science was telling us for centuries that all of our notions about disease and the workings of the body were dead wrong. When I say We didn't know something I mean that doctors at the time either ignored the scientific evidence for germ theory, or were flat out ignorant of it. I don't mean to say that science at one time advocated some other theory of disease. 

Verificationism is the belief that we should only believe in that which can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Verificationism is self refuting, because we cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we should only believe in that which can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Few things are absolute. What you see isn't absolute. What you hear isn't absolute. Should we just reject everything that can't be proven to the nth degree and retreat into a Descartes-like hyper skepticism? Or is your verificationist philosophy limited only to when science tells you things? 

There's no philosophy of mine here. I'm just posting in a forum, I'm not using my words like I'd use in a paper. You know what I mean by using "absolute". You know what I'm talking about when I say that many blindly believes in science without a second thought. I'm not in a intellectual discussion here and I don't want to.

If you're really as clever as your writing shows, you should be able to read my posts considering that it's just a normal chat and that I'm using figures of speech and nuances common to regular chat and word meanings that you can find on a regular dictionary. Also I believe the context where I'm putting my words is clear.

The worst part of this is, that believers want it like that. They want easy understandable answers that are true for them even if they are not objectively true. Change is bad. If you got a religion that has to correct itself over and over again, people will lose interest and trust in it. So it's safer to keep it how it is. Thus, you also shouldn't use religious scriptures as real world models or even see it as some kind of science. But if you have people that believe that religion contains more truth than science does it can get very dangerous. There is also the group of believers who looks down on science, because it has to correct itself, not understanding that this is by far the best feature of it. 

Science doesn't have to be absolute for people to try and act on it because it's the best information we have currently. Quantum physics isn't absolute but that doesn't mean we should stop making computers, germ theory isn't absolute but that doesn't mean you should stop taking medicine. 

You also seem to be equivocating between what is scientific consensus and what is just some story someone heard about eggs or wine. 

All that said, my main issue with this philosophy of yours can be solved quite quickly because I view it as a slippery slope to some untenable views on the world. With that in mind: do you utilize this apparent science skepticism do discount the consensus on things like global warming and vaccines or is it only applied to news stories on food?

News stories on food? Why are you now trying to insult me? What have I done?

Like half your examples of science's failings were based on food....

----- Can you link to these numerous studies saying that butter is bad for you, and vegetable oil is good for you? Can you show that said stance, was a view held by the overwhelming majority of scientists at any given time?

Look it up or talk to anyone on the streets. You know what I'm saying is true.

----- Remember it is your responsibility to back up your own claims, and I would happily do the same if asked by you.

No. I'm not writing a paper, I haven't stated anything beyond common.

---- As for the disease example; Yes, that's how science works. We didn't know about something, then made a discovery, and corrected ourselves. That is how science works.

That's what I said. Thank you for agreeing with me that we can't blindly believe in science, because they always have to correct themselves.

Now, one question, you say "correct ourselves". Are you a scientist? Did my posts offend you?