1,129
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 267:
Line 267: + +
→Moved from my talk page
::Right... but surely you agree, based on the separate burdens of proof, that religious faith should not substitute for scientific proof.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Right... but surely you agree, based on the separate burdens of proof, that religious faith should not substitute for scientific proof.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 21:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: When someone presents their faith as science, they are allowing it to be rung through the ringer and also need to meet the requirements of falsifiability and reproducibility. There is nothing wrong with saying "This is what the Bible says and I believe that". However to say "This is what the Bible says and science is wrong because it doesn't match that" is implicitly subjecting that faith and revelation to the same standards as is demanded on science. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)