27 August 2009


On Science [digged from comments]

Science is quite often wrong, but it is also self correcting. That is whenever new information proves something was wrong, then if it can be altered slightly to fit that new information it is. If it can't then the old idea is scrapped and a new one is presented that takes into account why the old idea seemed correct and why the new idea describes the data better. Science is not rigid nor written in stone, that is an advantage. - BeamStalk

Darwin only had the anatomical knowledge of his day to work with. Modern research may have proved him wrong about the appendix, but after all that is what modern science is all about. It's about testing and proving old hypothesese right or wrong and its done all the time. That is SCIENCE. - Happy Humanist

Too bad Christian's cannot correct the parts of the Bible that are wrong, they are locked in to a system that is ridgid, unchanging and uncaring. There may be some comfort in that, but there is no truth or honesty. -Wait What

Who says science is never wrong? Science is superior to religious dogma because scientists check their own and each others work to find the errors and correct them, while religious fundamentalists refuse to question anything in their holy books. - Lord Runolfr

I assume you are contrasting the alterable nature of science with the supposed un-alterable nature of your religion or your Bible. In either case, it could be shown that both your religion as well as your Bible and/or the accepted interpretation of that Bible, are quite subject to alteration, and quite subject to being thought “wrong” by the next generation of believers. Ironically, when detractors bring up such examples as Christians’ of the 16th century use of the Bible as justification of slavery, or the founder of Protestantism’s use of the bible to support racism against Jews, a common Christian response is to proclaim that no human is perfect, and therefore no human is above the occasional mistake (what one might call “falsehood”). I ask, which of these two scenarios sounds more like someone claiming to possess a license for recurrent falsehood? - Jay

Scientific journals reject articles from creationists for the same reason they reject articles about Flat Earth theory. - B. Pierce

No comments:

Post a Comment