If one assumes that man was made by a god, he has made an unfounded assumption. He may be correct, but to assume that he is is premature without better evidence of that claim.
You keep saying unfounded assumption.
What's an unfounded assumption? A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn, made without a basis in reason or fact.
Do you mean like these?
Age of the Earth - Wikipedia
In 1862, the physicist William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin published calculations that fixed the age of Earth at between 20 million and 400 million years. He assumed that Earth had formed as a completely molten object, and determined the amount of time it would take for the near-surface to cool to its present temperature. His calculations did not account for heat produced via radioactive decay (a process then unknown to science) or, more significantly, convection inside the Earth, which allows more heat to escape from the interior to warm rocks near the surface
In a lecture in 1869, Darwin's great advocate, Thomas H. Huxley, attacked Thomson's calculations, suggesting they appeared precise in themselves but were based on faulty assumptions.
The physicist Hermann von Helmholtz (in 1856) and astronomer Simon Newcomb (in 1892) contributed their own calculations of 22 and 18 million years respectively to the debate: they independently calculated the amount of time it would take for the Sun to condense down to its current diameter and brightness from the nebula of gas and dust from which it was born. Their values were consistent with Thomson's calculations. However, they assumed that the Sun was only glowing from the heat of its gravitational contraction. The process of solar nuclear fusion was not yet known to science.
In 1895 John Perry challenged Kelvin's figure on the basis of his assumptions on conductivity, and Oliver Heaviside entered the dialogue, considering it "a vehicle to display the ability of his operator method to solve problems of astonishing complexity."
The discovery of radioactivity introduced another factor in the calculation. After Henri Becquerel's initial discovery in 1896, Marie and Pierre Curie discovered the radioactive elements polonium and radium in 1898; and in 1903, Pierre Curie and Albert Laborde announced that radium produces enough heat to melt its own weight in ice in less than an hour. Geologists quickly realized that this upset the assumptions underlying most calculations of the age of Earth. These had assumed that the original heat of the Earth and Sun had dissipated steadily into space, but radioactive decay meant that this heat had been continually replenished. George Darwin and John Joly were the first to point this out, in 1903.
Rutherford assumed that the rate of decay of radium as determined by Ramsay and Soddy was accurate, and that helium did not escape from the sample over time. Rutherford's scheme was inaccurate, but it was a useful first step.
Arthur Holmes became interested in radiometric dating and continued to work on it after everyone else had given up. Holmes focused on lead dating, because he regarded the helium method as unpromising. He performed measurements on rock samples and concluded in 1911 that the oldest (a sample from Ceylon) was about 1.6 billion years old. These calculations were not particularly trustworthy. For example, he assumed that the samples had contained only uranium and no lead when they were formed.
Dark energy - Wikipedia
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain the observations since the 1990s indicating that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
Assuming that the standard model of cosmology is correct, the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 68% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe.
Dark matter - Wikipedia
Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe, and about a quarter of its total energy density.
Alternative hypotheses
Because dark matter remains to be conclusively identified, many other hypotheses have emerged aiming to explain the observational phenomena that dark matter was conceived to explain. The most common method is to modify general relativity. General relativity is well-tested on solar system scales, but its validity on galactic or cosmological scales has not been well proven. A suitable modification to general relativity can conceivably eliminate the need for dark matter.
Oort cloud - Wikipedia
The Oort cloud is a theoretical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals proposed to surround the Sun at distances ranging from 2,000 to 200,000 AU (0.0 to 3.2 ly).
....
Astronomers conjecture that the matter composing the Oort cloud formed closer to the Sun and was scattered far into space by the gravitational effects of the giant planets early in the Solar System's evolution. Although no confirmed direct observations of the Oort cloud have been made, it may be the source of all long-period and Halley-type comets entering the inner Solar System, and many of the centaurs and Jupiter-family comets as well.
The existence of the Oort cloud was first postulated by Estonian astronomer Ernst Öpik in 1932.
propose - put forward (an idea or plan) for consideration or discussion by others.
conjecture - an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
postulate - suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
Oh dear me.
So we go with the science, yes? Bad or good. I'm not knocking science, so please don't get me wrong. What I am seeking to argue, is that you are making science out to be what it's not - a god. Yet there are so many of these modern day scientific myths out there, one can find.
When science involves, according to you, unfounded assumptions, (I call them, simply assumptions), there is no good reason one has for accepting them as the truth, because they are not demonstrated to be.
Even if one believe them to be true, that's entirely up to them, but to tell me that they have truth.. and I don't. You don't have anything better than I do.
You don't believe in throwing your hands in the air, and saying you don't know, I think it's fair you don't deny others the same privilege.
For example, through science, they know things like these.
See
this post please.
Please provide an example where a religion corrected its mistake without having first been shown to be in error by science.
No, I am quite competent at discussing religion.
Religious people use faith, a method that almost no chance at arriving at truth. Once you introduce an idea believed to be fact by faith, you have left sound reason behind.
Well, I will tell you this, I am no YEC, as I said before, so science did not adjust my religious views.
JWs religious views are actually responsible for science moving toward a better approach to health care, and you are also wrong about faith where JWs are concerned.
If you were actually competent at discussing all religions, you would not be asking me, you would be telling me - since you know my religion, but you can't.
I'm sure you would have a similar problem with others, because there are thousands with different beliefs, and you don't know many of them.
You can always prove me wrong. Do you care to try?
) I think it's pertinent to inquire of the OP. 
