Is There a Difference Between Trusting Scientists and Trusting Preachers?

[madog]

Oh, I'm sure, but what does that have to do with the inconsistent propositions you've offered, that you just quoted me in regards to, again?

I will clarify since this has become disjointed.

1. If a religious belief conflicts with a scientific fact, it should be discarded. Scientific fact can disprove a religious claim if the religious claim is making statements about the natural world--how the world is. (for example: world is center of the universe, sickness is a judgement from God, the earth is 6000 years old, and other traditional god-of-the-gaps beliefs that have been dismissed). 
2. Scientific facts have no bearing on the possibility of supernatural causes because claims of supernatural causes do not make claims about the natural world. In fact, when weighing whether a supernatural event happened, we rely on science to tell us if a natural cause is possible/probable.

Look, by your logic nothing can be in conflict with science as long as the claim is its not possible (supernatural) .... So a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is not in conflict with science .... Even if science can prove what a rainbow is it doesn't prove that those that believe wrong ....they can just state there is an end to the rainbow and a pot of gold only visible to a believer ...

True  "supernatural causes do not make claims about the natural world" natural people in the natural world do, based on nothing other than an ancient fiction book