If the same standards of evidence were applied to science as are to religion, what would be different?

If you applied your same standards of evidence to the legal system, all the criminals would get off scot-free, because YOUR notion of "evidence" is limited to "scientific" without regard to any sufficient reasoning.

You are very narrow-minded, and if I were being accused of something, I certainly wouldn't want YOU in either the jury box OR the witness stand - you don't have a clue what is meant by "evidence"!

There is sufficient reason to put your trust in God.

Jesus said that if you REALLY want to know if His teachings were that of a mere man, or from God (implying the existence of said God), then "OBEY THESE COMMANDS, and you SHALL know (one way OR the other)" (Referring to the Sermon on the Mount, beginning in the 5th chapter of the gospel according to Matthew)

This is more an objective "litmus" test than anything any atheist has provided! Are you open-minded enough to even put this to the test? Or is your theme song, "Don't confuse me with Truth; my mind's already made up!" ?

The only difference is that scientists - when disputing over hypotheses and theories (and they do) - would claim to know that they are right based on the evidence of a particular scientific magazine and that they reject the findings published in alternate "heathen" scientific magazines.

Other than that, I don't think there would be much difference. Science still would employ the scientific method. The only difference would be what we might call "the scientific standard of proof".

- Jim, Bach Sci Physics 1989

If somebody informed me they had a crimson vehicle, i does not call for an quite extreme well-known of evidence for it. it truly is an effortless component to have faith. in actuality, i does not even question them, it may so unquestionably be genuine. somebody would struggle by a complicated logical technique to be sure the existence of God. whilst they have desperate that, besides the shown fact that, to income that he delivered somebody decrease back from the ineffective, as an occasion, does not require a extreme well-known of evidence. provided that God exists, and given the definition of God as being having the ability to do something, to have faith that he can boost the ineffective is obviously no super deal. To have faith that bacteria grew to become into people, on the different hand, is a sizable deal. It does not help the communicate whilst evolutionists are so often puzzled approximately what data they're proposing. no person has presented "fossils showing distinctive ranges of evolution". What we've are fossils showing distinctive existence types, with specific similarities to a minimum of one yet another. that's the commentary - not something greater. regardless of if or not they're comparable because of the fact they're kin or in straight forward terms for the comparable reason that homestead windows XP and homestead windows Vista are comparable - i.e. straight forward layout - is theory, not commentary. in case you think of we are puzzling the term 'theory', then clarify greater the version between your 2 usages. so some distance as i understand, regardless of if i take advantage of the term in verbal exchange or in technological understanding, it continually potential the comparable element - a available clarification for specific observations. to place issues as in basic terms as available nevertheless, look on the internet Browser you're making use of precise now. If some people declare it truly is been designed and others declare it truly is happen by random differences to a 1995 notice Processor, and element to the existence of polymorphic viruses and a 2002 notice processor which has some on line function as their data, I ask you - who might YOU call for the utmost well-known of evidence from?

Three atheistic astrophysicists (Dyson, Kleban &Susskind) wrote a paper "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" (you can read the paper on line).

In it they described the concept as it is generally accepted by the scientific community and showed the math to it.

They said: "Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle." They also said: "An external agent" (external to our space and time) "intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own."

They therefore rejected the currently accepted concept in favor of a less popular one and not based on the fact they they were unwilling to accept that what they had written was in fact a possibility. Thus their atheistic beliefs dictated their "science" rather than letting science speak for itself.

We would be flooded with unreasonable and unfounded hypotheses, because without the standards of evidence-based knowledge and peer-review, everyone would simply make up their own belief or simply latch onto someone else’s. Faith (belief without evidence) would replace knowledge and facts and we would resend into the dark ages.

We would not have these ridiculous science theories floating around for years even after PROVEN untrue ... many by the person who thought them up! Darwin said he knew there were many flaws w/ his theories. He expected that some things, like missing links, would be found in the near future after his death ... they have NOT! Although MANY fossil beds have been sifted through.

There are masses that though something has been proven false (ex "Lucy") STILL going around telling it to be true. They do not even realize how dearly they will pay for leading others astray.

God help them.

Nothing. It is actually what makes science so much better thannreligion, bcause we got evidence

Science is simple recording of things observed. The problem is that scientists bring a bias to the information recorded.

Because the Bible is written and does not change, all men are required to understand it in the same way. However, many bring their own desires to those Scriptures, just as scientist do to absolute reality.

But the truth of both stays the same. One true answer to any question in science and in the Bible.

We'd still be living in caves.

We'd still have medicine men who would dance around your sickbed shouting, "Ooga-Booga, Ooga-Booga!" And that would be the best treatment you could get.

Computers would be boxes of different-sized rocks.

And our cars would be foot-powered like Fred Flintstone's.