or just plain out wrong.....because something that makes the first finding wrong was found in the second finding by a different scientist or group of scientist...this is not uncommon...
My point is simply to pick an example that illustrates the low probability that intelligent life could have occurred randomly on planet earth. It's simply an illustration. I think you're being unfair here. I believe that if you could show that evolution occurred with 99.99999999999% probability, you'd be flashing the #s just as I am.
Science = Technology. Science as a method to enable development of technology. hhmm...let's see how can chips be faster and cooler.. ooooo I know use atoms instead of etching silicon layers. How do atoms work oooo ...I know build some technology to tell or us..... errm no use don't know how .....Ahhhh try SCIENCE. Use Science to work out a method. You could also try fondue set collecting or butterfly wrestling or religion, but I guess it will be science which comes up with some practical and useful answers
__________________________________ What is the big problem? Are you saying that scientists are above this sort of thing. And where did I say that religion is not effected by this problem. I said that this is essentially a "human" problem and is prevalent everywhere. In the specific case I am witnessing they are not fiddling with the statistics but merely not reporting findings outside their preconceived ideas. So far this instance has gone on for 60 years and has not been found out and it won't be as long as funding and promotions are the goals. Science is sometimes wrong because it is misused and sometimes it is right. I am only saying that if you question the positions of religion because of human frailties then science should surely be held to the same standard. If people should not believe in God then they maybe shouldn't make a god out of science and believe it too is infallible.
or just plain wrong... yes but you know it is just plain wrong because other science, or practical logical deduction shows it to be. And you try to do better. When the "science" or practical logical deduction of religion is just plain wrong as axeman described the Genesis nonsense to be, religion's answer is... just keeps the Genesis nonsense in place. It wallows in incoherence.
There you go again. I have shown how Genesis "coincidentally" provides the exact sequence of the astronomical and archaeological record and provided good answers to all of axeman's objections (on p. 32) and yet you still flame Genesis as "nonsense". Is it too much to ask that you don't insult every Jew and Christian on the planet w/o at least providing some evidence for your accusations? Where is Genesis 1 incorrect if it is "nonsense" as you say?
doubter, People are fallible so applying the scientific method is fallible. People don't have all the information so the application of science is fallible. Applying methods of Science is an attempt to build and improve on useful findings which are the very least fallible. Numerous practical lifesaving life enhancing benefits are possible using science and improving a better knowledge of science everyday. People are fallible so religion is fallible. Religion makes some people feel good. Its an art form. It's like music (although music makes more sense to me). But you can't save or enhance life with music or religion like you can with the results of scientific development.
And, no, I don't expect anyone to go, "Oh, I think I'll become Jewish or Christian." I just want people to stop trash talking Genesis 1 without substantive reasons.
Main Entry: sci·ence Function: noun 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science> 3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena Using the above definition of science....i still don;t understand how there is scientific findings in a computer? A computer is a tool...nothing more .....now if you want to say some science knowledge went into making this tool, im ok with that, but when you make a tool you have an inanimate object which cannot be denied...read # 3......many of these supposed findings are based on information on a lot of theory, not scientific methods of proving their hypothesis....which, is very much like religion...it's all a leap of faith....that is why i laugh as they discuss with certainty that dinosaurs were this color, ate that or became extinct because of a large asteroid....or when they talk about an expanding universe and black holes which they can not see , touch, or experiment on....yet it's some of these same scientists who are the biggest atheists....why? lack of evidence
Just because some cannot understand Genesis 1 does not mean it is not understandable. Just because I don't understand some theories of physics does not mean that they are not understandable. The Bible itself says you won't understand its' principles unless the spirit interprets them for you. I have certainly noticed this and have discussed the phenomenon with many others who are more highly educated than I am.