Science isn't All That Reliable...

Science is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that can never be questioned.

I'll be on the side that is constantly strives to correct itself. That is how you make PROGRESS!

 

Gee, I guess you didn't like that article. Oh well,,, I got a laugh out of it.

 

You do.

Remember this posting that you made?
http://www.politicalforum.com/4338365-post37.html
Sounds to me that you are interested enough to ask for evidence of that issue. Is your memory failing you?

 

Well a truth has finally escaped from your mind. By being on the side that is constantly striving to correct itself, infers that you are also 'always' wrong, else there would not be a need to be always striving to correct yourself.

 

And what makes you think that religions are right? They don't even bother to try. They just make up some story and stick with it come hell or high water, refusing to even admit that their bizarre worldviews have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. The fact that religions are so slow to adapt to reality, and to adjust their messages to correspond with what is actually known is evidence only that they are even less correct than the admittedly imperfect scientific viewpoint.

Moreover, knowing that you do not know something is a valuable contribution towards accuracy. Religions cannot even admit that much, and must make up stories out of whole cloth to justify the gaps in their understanding. That's not just being wrong, that's outright lying.

 

Did YOU write this?

 

Right there in the middle of that paragraph is that strange word again. Reality. What is reality and where does reality appear? A question I have posed several times, and the pseudo-scientists (wanna-be scientists) on this forum refuse to give an answer. So, when you guys and gals figure out what and where reality is, then you should not be discussing it or using it as a figure of speech, because it shows that you are ignorant of that subject matter.

It also appears that you 'cannot even admit' that you know nothing or next to nothing about spiritual matters. So what point are you trying to make? This is a forum on religion... not science... unless you are willing to admit that you treat science as a religion.

 

There is nothing known that's perfectly reliable. But science is at the top of the list of being the most reliable thing we have.

 

Here is a classic example of scientific reliability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

and another such example (a whole series)http://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...633l0l8945l19l19l0l9l9l0l255l1884l0.5.5l10l0:

 

Reality is what is staring you in the face. It is the rock you can disbelieve to your heart's content, but which will still fall towards the Earth when you drop it.

Reality is the objective world around you that is the same for each person regardless of their beliefs. It is the portion of each person's perception that others can agree about. You can invest that tree with spirits to your heart's delight, but that will not make the tree anything other than a tree to someone else. That is reality.

I have repeatedly stated that I have no knowledge of spiritual matters; for me, the issue is meaningless and dead. There are no spirits, and therefore no spiritual matters to be concerned with. It is a nonsensical debate, and one I only genuinely care about when people try to push their spiritual nonsense into public life.

Are you even going to try to pretend that religion does not try to push itself into every aspect of society if allowed to? Religion intersects with real issues all the time. Religions are very real things, even if their mythological deities and spirits are not. This very thread is clear enough example of that, where the original poster attempted to describe science as an inaccurate alternative to religion. How can that discussion not evolve into a discussion about the nature of science and how it differs from religion?

 

A person can still believe in the scientific method and have faith in God.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

As an example:

A Catholic priest developed the theory of the Big Bang...
Monsignor Georges Lemaître.

 

A Catholic priest also developed Occams Razor.... so what is your point?

 

But yet Evolution disproves the bible. Go Figure

 

It calls into question, Genesis from the Old Testament.

A part of the Bible, but certainly not the entire Bible.

 

Evolution was only a dream of Darwin. A fantasy, fairy tale that he created and convinced others that his fairy tale was a real event. All without any proof of his claim.... Talk about Sheeple... those that followed in his footstep are true worshipers of the fantastic... the ultimate in rationalism...

 

A person can still believe in the scientific method and have faith in God.

Can't make it any clearer than that....

 

So then why believe the bible?

This 'god' omnipotent/omniscient. Why is there ANY room to ' calls into question' any part of the bible. This 'god' can create the entire universe but cant inspire man to write a book with no room to 'call into question' his word?

Think about it.

 

They are if you intend to hold god to the same standard that you hold scientific theories. The only way a person can believe in both is to hold god to a much lesser standard. Someone who treats them equally must cleave to one or the other, because the scientific worldview has many areas that directly contradict the religious worldview.

The only way a person can believe both is if they do not do justice to one worldview or the other. A religious person who contents himself with the explanation that god started evolution is not doing justice to either god or to science, because there is no religious grounds by which you can accept that explanation nor any evidence to suggest that god was involved that would let it fit in the scientific theory. God-the-watchmaker does not fit into the scientific worldview because there is no evidence for it and no need to include it to provide adequate explanations. Neither is there textual support for it in the religious worldview.

So? I've met a catholic priest who didn't believe in god. I've also met catholic scientists who lie to themselves and pretend they still do.

 

Except, you know, the mountains of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection and the confirmed predictive value of the theory.

 

This is a trick of many of the creationist/religious nut-jobs....Attack Darwin.

We have so much more knowledge now than when Darwin was alive that the two (modern Evolution Theory and Darwin's) are not even the same theories any more.

I guess they ( creationist/religious nut-jobs) are simply beating a dead horse when they attack Darwin. They simply cannot understand, that one DNA was discovered, it was a whole new ball game. But since they want to catch up with science, let them beat a dead horse...it just shows their stupidity.

 

You miss the point. The priest who developed occams razor was not any longer interested in serving what was his God... he was another Judas..

As for your comment about the inward nature of people. Does the label on the outside fully describe the inward person? Many people claim to be this or that including being a member of this group or that group... but are they truly what they say they are? That is where science is failing in its' claims of knowing people and also where Theists and Atheists fail in claiming that they know the inward person. Judgments that are passed by Atheists are based on what they say are observations... well, those observations are observations of the physical (outside person) but have they truly judged the inside person or entity? Theists will also judge in like manner but theists have at least a set of rules to govern how that judgment is to be conducted... Science and atheists have no such rules other than judging the physical and the physical actions.

 

No, what's really funny is that I'm sure you actually believe in the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in the article. Now THAT is hilarious.

Excuse me, who was the one that came into the argument stating that movies were a better source than Wikipedia? It wasn't me.

 

Incorporeal said movies made in Hollywood is a better source of information than Wikipedia?

 

That you are even discussing the legitimacy of my claim is even more hilarious.

If you look back at that text of mine that you reference, you will also notice my use of the phrase "in my OPINION"... go ingest some potassium permanganate... maybe it will clear the fog in your mind?

 

They seem to think that without Darwin the theory is nothing, which is obviously, incorrect.

His argument what that organisms in a particular environment would posses attributes in that particular environment that would make them more suited the thrive and reproduce. It is a very simple concept. Common sense really.

However, he did not really cite the mechanism by which such selection would take place, on a fundamental level. That is the stumbling block for creationists, and the "I can't believe you are using this argument" response from the more enlightened persons.