The rEvolving Doorway

[Earthling]

How about theorem?

That's how science works. It makes observations, collects evidence, proposes a theorem, then tests it.

Oh, I never get tired of hearing that. What does politics do in your estimation? Rob, steal, cheat, lie, corrupt? Guess what? Nothing ever does what it says it does.

So again, what are specific theories or facts you think have changed?
...and where did these 'atheists' come from?

All of them in the past, present and future.

 

[Earthling]

No you have not explained it, you have asserted a false argument ignorant as to how ALL science works.

Science works like this. The weatherman looks at data regarding the weather and tries to foretell what it will do. Sometimes he gets it right, but most of the time he doesn't. The scientist for hire in their funny lab coats gather data on whether or not the egg is good for you. One year they say it is, and one year they say it isn't. They are wrong both times. Mostly science works for the government trying to figure out ways we can destroy our enemies. Some scientists dig around in the dirt and find shards of pig and monkey bones and they try to pass them off as human ancestors. These scientists are idiots, but very popular with atheists because atheists don't want to believe in God.

That's how science really works.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Science belongs to Christians, you Pagans have no claim on it. God created it and imbeciles can only use the super dumb process of elimination to gain any knowledge at all

This made me laugh. First off, if you're going to credit any religious group with 'creating science' (by which I assume you mean the scientific method) then the only factually correct answer you can give is "you Pagans". The Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Mayans et al made significant advances in the fields of astronomy, medicine etc long before Christianity entered the picture (in their locales or otherwise).

Christianity, on the other hand, is responsible for a lot of cultural regression in Europe towards the end of the Classical era - what with its adherents' tendency to destroy artefacts like statuary or buildings; their tendency to burn down libraries and scriptoria containing 'pagan' knowledge; their tendency to murder intellectuals like Hypatia of Alexandria and the clergy's tendency to be generally anti-intellectual jerks.

I'm not sure 'success' is the right word...

It must truly be a burden being this savage.

 

[Valjean]

All of them in the past, present and future.

Come on now. Be serious.
You're spouting nonsense.

 

[sojourner]

To teach that 4+8=12?

What in the h. e. Double-toothpicks does that have to do with anything?

 

[sojourner]

Do they honestly believe scientists should stick to their original hypotheses no matter what?

Yes, and why not? They stick to their theological statements, even when they’re wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science works like this. The weatherman looks at data regarding the weather and tries to foretell what it will do. Sometimes he gets it right, but most of the time he doesn't. The scientist for hire in their funny lab coats gather data on whether or not the egg is good for you. One year they say it is, and one year they say it isn't. They are wrong both times. Mostly science works for the government trying to figure out ways we can destroy our enemies. Some scientists dig around in the dirt and find shards of pig and monkey bones and they try to pass them off as human ancestors. These scientists are idiots, but very popular with atheists because atheists don't want to believe in God.

That's how science really works.

PHFFFFFFFFT! PLOP! Dribble dribble.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, and why not? They stick to their theological statements, even when they’re wrong.

In the world of creationists, conclusions are set in stone and are never, ever, ever subject to revision. So I guess they figure it should be the same in science.

Fundamentalists are typified by an emotional need for certainty and discomfort with ambiguity. That would explain why they see the tentative nature of science as a weakness rather than a strength.

 

[nPeace]

In the world of creationists, conclusions are set in stone and are never, ever, ever subject to revision. So I guess they figure it should be the same in science.

Fundamentalists are typified by an emotional need for certainty and discomfort with ambiguity. That would explain why they see the tentative nature of science as a weakness rather than a strength.

I think some people just close their eyes to the facts that scientists are men, and they know very little. I think they are idolized, because they promote *any god, but that Biblical one."

So it doesn't matter how much damage some do in their quests for fame, and materialism...
We'll just wait for the great collapse.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think some people just close their eyes to the facts that scientists are men, and they know very little. I think they are idolized, because they promote *any god, but that Biblical one."

I've never heard any scientist say that. It's quite telling though that you see things that way.

So it doesn't matter how much damage some do in their quests for fame, and materialism...
We'll just wait for the great collapse.

Bizarre.

 

[Earthling]

Come on now. Be serious.
You're spouting nonsense.

No, I'm not. Men of science try to figure stuff out. If they pull it off then there is no more need of science. They will never pull it off. So, if you look at the science I was taught in school as fact, it is no longer fact. The science that is promoted as fact today will no longer be fact tomorrow. The science of tomorrow will be promoted as fact for a while and then will no longer be promoted as fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I'm not. Men of science try to figure stuff out. If they pull it off then there is no more need of science. They will never pull it off. So, if you look at the science I was taught in school as fact, it is no longer fact. The science that is promoted as fact today will no longer be fact tomorrow. The science of tomorrow will be promoted as fact for a while and then will no longer be promoted as fact.

Scientists are constantly refining what we know. You have not been able to support any of your claims about science. At best you have only shown that you did not properly learn in high school and you still won't let yourself learn today.

The flaw is not with scientists.

 

[sojourner]

No, I'm not. Men of science try to figure stuff out. If they pull it off then there is no more need of science. They will never pull it off. So, if you look at the science I was taught in school as fact, it is no longer fact. The science that is promoted as fact today will no longer be fact tomorrow. The science of tomorrow will be promoted as fact for a while and then will no longer be promoted as fact.

But everything is that way. Everything. Because, as our own horizons expand, we make more connections, see more perspectives, and dig just a little deeper. The spiritual endeavor should especially remain malleable where belief is concerned. Religion isn’t to be kept under glass in a vacuum; it’s to be played out in the ever-changing game we call “life.”

 

[Earthling]

But everything is that way. Everything. Because, as our own horizons expand, we make more connections, see more perspectives, and dig just a little deeper. The spiritual endeavor should especially remain malleable where belief is concerned. Religion isn’t to be kept under glass in a vacuum; it’s to be played out in the ever-changing game we call “life.”

No. We make up stuff out of ignorance and fear. I am constantly being told not to criticize science while using the Internet, because science is always attributed the inventions of technology. The Internet was invented out of fear by the U.S. Army. Fear and uncertainty, like science, remains the same while evolving. The atheists criticize the "Primitive Goat Herders" who wrote the Bible to have done so out of the same fear and uncertainty.

But did they? Does that really make sense? They had answers that were, in their time, far more advanced than the science of their time.

 

[sojourner]

No. We make up stuff out of ignorance and fear. I am constantly being told not to criticize science while using the Internet, because science is always attributed the inventions of technology. The Internet was invented out of fear by the U.S. Army. Fear and uncertainty, like science, remains the same while evolving. The atheists criticize the "Primitive Goat Herders" who wrote the Bible to have done so out of the same fear and uncertainty.

But did they? Does that really make sense? They had answers that were, in their time, far more advanced than the science of their time.

I disagree.

 

[sayak83]

No, I'm not. Men of science try to figure stuff out. If they pull it off then there is no more need of science. They will never pull it off. So, if you look at the science I was taught in school as fact, it is no longer fact. The science that is promoted as fact today will no longer be fact tomorrow. The science of tomorrow will be promoted as fact for a while and then will no longer be promoted as fact.

You were not very good in science streams I assume? If I may ask, what sort of an education have you had?

 

[Earthling]

I disagree.

Why?

 

[sojourner]

Why?

Because the evidence does not bear out your hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. We make up stuff out of ignorance and fear. I am constantly being told not to criticize science while using the Internet, because science is always attributed the inventions of technology. The Internet was invented out of fear by the U.S. Army. Fear and uncertainty, like science, remains the same while evolving. The atheists criticize the "Primitive Goat Herders" who wrote the Bible to have done so out of the same fear and uncertainty.

But did they? Does that really make sense? They had answers that were, in their time, far more advanced than the science of their time.

You are criticized more for your abuse of science than anything else.

 

[Jose Fly]

I gotta admit.....he's one of the best Poes I've ever seen.