well if ur basing ur beliefs on science, ill attack science. quite simply science is completley fickle, theories are being proven wrong all the time, for example quantam physics and the theory of relativity, the big bang theory replaced a different theory (i forget what the name is). so really its only a matter of time until a 'more accurate theory' comes out. what will u do then? what will happen to the beliefs u hold so staunchly
rather than basing ur beliefs on science, i suggest u base them on ration.
55 comments
That's right.
Theories are not evaluated by some black and white standard of wrong or right. They are instead evaluated on how well the evidence supports them, whether or not they make testable predictions and it's usefulness.
the big bang theory replaced a different theory (i forget what the name is)
Why do fundamentalists associate weakness with change? They seem unable to grasp that science, as it uncovers more of the world, does so through slow steps where in one view is adopted until it is shown to be wrong and is then replaced. They go on and on about how their holy book never changes without realising that without change things die.
"well if ur basing ur beliefs on science, ill attack science."
...quite simply science is completley fickle... so really its only a matter of time until a 'more accurate theory' comes out.
Only if further evidence or deeper rational insight makes it so. It certainly beats pulling imaginary "explanations" out of your ass in order to avoid the mental discomfort of uncertainty.
The whole point is that we don't hold our "beliefs" "staunchly." We're open to new information, and new evidence. All you can do is cling to whatever holy book you prefer, and rant as knowledge passes you by. I pity you for not knowing what it's like to expand your mind.
The Big Bang, the only example for which you almost name a theory and what it replaced, replaced the steady-state model about a half a century ago. That hardly establishes your "all the time" claim.
Ur is a city in Iraq.
In other words, "rather than basing ur beliefs on an attempt to rationally explain observed facts, i suggest u base them on stuff people made up 2,000 - 4,000 years ago".
Dude, it's not like there's a great big publishing company out there getting set to release Eternity & Existence, v3.5 or anything. You don't have to dump your collection and get all the new sourcebooks whenever a scientific theory gets supplanted. It's more of a Player's Option kind of thing. [/snark]
I will pass over the fact that you´re using computers, medicines and so on. Just tell me this one, how do you know that relativity and quantum theory have been disproven?, to my knowledge, they´re still a challenge for the scientists. Second, which theory, whose name you can´t remember, replaced the Big Bang?, that God created the world in six days?. Of course, we change theories all the time, so long as evidence is presented.
rather than basing ur beliefs on science, i suggest u base them on ration. is rationality, you moron. And the belief we "hold so staunchly" is in the scientific method, and is far more fundamental than belief in any one theory it produces. Our beliefs in a given scientific theory may be shaken whenever it is superseded by a better one, but that only serves to reinforce the belief in the validity of the method that produces those theories when they turn out to work better.
Yeah, remember those MORONS who invented the spear? Dumbfucks, they think they are so great until the bow and arrow came along and it had better reach and accuracy. Then those IDIOTS thought that was like the pinnacle of weapons until some guy came along and put a musketball in their ass. And then these blackpower-packing shit-for-brains thought they were king-shit until the machine gun was invented. Yeah, right, like that could hold its own against an ariel bomb! Get real. So these guys think they're the kings of the world until...
scientific thoeries change because new evidence is discovered that the old theory can't explain, therefore the theory is changed to fit the evidence, if the theory stays valid for a certain period of time (i forget how much exactly and what other criteria there is) it becomes a scientific law.
Actually, throwing out invalid theories when new evidence comes up is a good thing. If the evidence does not support a theory, that theory really should be thrown out. Self-correcction in science helps ensure its accuracy.
Heavens! Science changes when confronted with evidence to the contrary!
Personally, I'm more incline to believe someone who's willing to admit an error than someone who charges blindly forward, denying any opposition to their views.
Stop using computers.
Idiot.
Whereas the Bible has consistently stated that you can alter the markings on goats with a striped stick.
I'll take the ones admitting when they're wrong and revising to fit the evidence over the ones gonig "NUH-UH! MY BOOK SAYS YOU'RE WRONG!"
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
