Difference between revisions of "Talk:Proof"
From Conservapedia
Sciencebuff (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
Tsumetai-- I think JC's contribution was helpful. Some scientists might not recognize a concept called "biblical proof", but that's the whole point, really. The mathematical and scientific and religious meanings of "proof" are NOT THE SAME. Maybe that's why creationists get so confused about the theory of evolution. They are accustomed to religious proof (believing certain things are facts, based on faith), and they don't understand that science ''never'' tries to "prove" "facts". So I am going to revert to include JC's part on biblical proof. | Tsumetai-- I think JC's contribution was helpful. Some scientists might not recognize a concept called "biblical proof", but that's the whole point, really. The mathematical and scientific and religious meanings of "proof" are NOT THE SAME. Maybe that's why creationists get so confused about the theory of evolution. They are accustomed to religious proof (believing certain things are facts, based on faith), and they don't understand that science ''never'' tries to "prove" "facts". So I am going to revert to include JC's part on biblical proof. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I'm not against a section on biblical proof per se. Just not that one. The definition of 'God' is already in the [[God]] article, and as for the statement that proof of all things can be found in the Bible...well, I invite anyone who believes that to provide a proof (or disproof) of, say, Goldbach's Conjecture. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 10:23, March 14, 2007
Tsumetai-- I think JC's contribution was helpful. Some scientists might not recognize a concept called "biblical proof", but that's the whole point, really. The mathematical and scientific and religious meanings of "proof" are NOT THE SAME. Maybe that's why creationists get so confused about the theory of evolution. They are accustomed to religious proof (believing certain things are facts, based on faith), and they don't understand that science never tries to "prove" "facts". So I am going to revert to include JC's part on biblical proof.
- I'm not against a section on biblical proof per se. Just not that one. The definition of 'God' is already in the God article, and as for the statement that proof of all things can be found in the Bible...well, I invite anyone who believes that to provide a proof (or disproof) of, say, Goldbach's Conjecture. Tsumetai 06:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
