It's only a matter of time

[_Simon Belmont]

Well, Buffalo, I am sure you'll have no problem proving that Science is the end-all say-all truth.

Go ahead, we're all waiting.

And while you're composing your world-changing post, remember some of the marvels of our scientific past:






This 1941 beauty treatment was purported to improve a lady’s complexion through the use of a vacuum – which seems dangerous, given that it completely encases her head in plastic.

Source

[_Morley]

Simon, your examples are not science.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, your examples are not science.

But my point is: Science is always changing. What is true today will not be true tomorrow. What was true 100 years ago is not true today. How can that be a reliable source of truth?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Simon, your examples are not science.

But my point is: Science is always changing. What is true today will not be true tomorrow. What was true 100 years ago is not true today. How can that be a reliable source of truth?

For that precise reason. Science recognizes that there is always more to learn and that our current understanding of the world is incomplete.

Religion tells us that the earth is only thousands of years old. Science has shown that is much older. It is possible that with new insights we will discover that the current estimates of the age of the universe needs to be revised.

But I much prefer to being closer to knowing the way things really are but sill not being sure than being absolutely sure about things that have been proven to be wrong.

[_Hoops]

Religion tells us that the earth is only thousands of years old.

Um... no... it doesn't. One interpretation (a literalists interpretation) of the Bible tells us this. There's a difference.

[_Themis]

Simon, your examples are not science.

But my point is: Science is always changing. What is true today will not be true tomorrow. What was true 100 years ago is not true today. How can that be a reliable source of truth?

He is right that your examples are not science. Science also is not always changing. It has also gave us a more reliable information about the universe around us then religion has. It wasn't religion that discovered the age of the earth or that there was no global flood. Science really is just a methodology of looking at the world around us, and as such can change our understanding about it with new information better then religion has ever done.

[_Themis]

Um... no... it doesn't. One interpretation (a literalists interpretation) of the Bible tells us this. There's a difference.

That's correct. Some religions may have a different idea of how old the earth is, and some may not have any teaching about it.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Um... no... it doesn't. One interpretation (a literalists interpretation) of the Bible tells us this. There's a difference.

That's correct. Some religions may have a different idea of how old the earth is, and some may not have any teaching about it.

Yes, all true. But when a religion does teach something, adherents tend to cling to their belief regardless of additional evidence. The fact that sciences changes is a strength, not a weakness.

[_Hoops]

Yes, all true. But when a religion does teach something, adherents tend to cling to their belief regardless of additional evidence. The fact that sciences changes is a strength, not a weakness.

Total crap. "A religion"... what does this even mean? Give us evidence to support these allegations.

It's not the RCC (which isn't a religion, it's denomination) so that can't be it. It's not LDS (which is a religion), so that's not it. I have no idea of Islam, you'll have to ask DCP. I doubt you mean Buddhism, Hinduism, et al., as they are sufficiently universalist as to be above criticism.

My suspicion is that you are thinking of some branches of the low church. Can you cite them? I'll make it easy for you, there is a bit of a movement to make YEC more doctrine that it has been in the past. So that's one. Anyone else in mind?

[_Themis]

Yes, all true. But when a religion does teach something, adherents tend to cling to their belief regardless of additional evidence. The fact that sciences changes is a strength, not a weakness.

I agree, although we do see a number of religious people and even some religions who have changed their beliefs and teachings based on science. The LDS church is not as good as most in this regard, although many members are much better. Science is also methodologies that work best in Analyzing the world around us. These methodologies are relatively new and have taken some time to evolve into better methods, and scientific evaluations are also relativity new. We see more change in scientific understanding from earlier times then we do later, and not because science is becoming dogmatic, but because it is probably getting closer to how things really are. Of course not all scientific disciplines have been around the same amount of time, nor is science perfect since it is made of people and all their weaknesses.