Scientist keep contradicting themselves...?

Question

I have a lot of respect for scientists believe they are an important part of society. Sincerely, I dont know where we would be without them, when it comes to research, health, and everything else. But I only have one thing to say, All i hear is theories, and every year, the earth was created in a different way...In high school, I always had poor grade in science. Here's an example:

Professor: So, we all know the earth was created from bla bla bla(whatever is the theory nowadays...)

Student: but ma'am, i thought it was the BIG BanG that created all the planet....

Can we all agree to one thing, so that I can contribute to science too...A lot of scientist are bashing religion when they are not even sure of what they are talking about...its like saying

" I know you stole that pen"
"OHH yeah, how do you know??"
"I just know it"

Answer 1

Nobody believes that the earth was created by the big bang. No wonder you got such poor grades.

Answer 2

wrong.
a theory in science is not necessarily correct. Science isnt afraid to go back and revise old theories and, if necessary, change old ones. Religion does not change, the christian bible has been used for centuries. This is the strength of science. Scientist are willing to say that they were wrong, but only when based on evidence, rather than a book written by men who thought tha tthe earth was flat

Answer 3

If we already had the answers to all the mysteries of life, our planet, and the universe, it seems to me that we wouldn't have much use for scientists, now, would we? Theories require periodic refinement as new evidence is discovered.

Those that believe that because there are holes in what we know about evolution, for example, is evidence that the entire theory is wrong would probably respond to your pen analogy with "you can't prove I stole it, therefore, I didn't steal it."

Answer 4

Theories are NOT mere guesses. Theories are backed up with large volumes of scientific research, observation, and evidence. Theories are continually updated as new evidence presents itself. At least the scientists have the moral fortitude to admit when they may not have been accurate and they update. You'd never hear that coming from a religious theologian.

Answer 5

Science is based on observable and recordable phenomenon. A scientist makes guesses based on what he has observed and measured. This leads the scientist to make a guess as to how the observed phenomenon behaves under certain conditions. As methods of observation and measurement improve, previous hypotheses and theories will be modified or abandoned due to the new information obtained.

In regards to religion...
The supernatural cannot be observed, measured or otherwise quantified. One is unable to postulate the nature of that which cannot be observed and does not seem to affect things around it. This leads to a denial of the supernatural until proof of such phenomenon can be obtained.

Answer 6

Science upholds the creation God's word. Why not read the book, Bible, or take a Bible study class, sounds only fair to me to study both.
The earth is billions of years old, it is written in the Bible. Dinosaurs did roam. "Behemoth" (Dino's) is written of in the Bible, nothing is hid by God, just by man :-)
Here is an example,
Question, "What did God tell Noah to take into the boat two by two?"
You will probably say "animals" as you were taught... please read now what the Bible really says,
Genesis: 6: 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring
55 into the ark, to keep [them] alive
53 with thee; they shall be male and female.
Of every FLESH, wow, how did these religions not see this? Flesh means humans too. So if you answered "animals" you are wrong! You get an "F".
Explains a lot, yes? Every Race, male and female.
p.s. Apple is not mentioned at all in the Bible.
Niether is Rapture, I could go on...and on....

Answer 7

i have yet to see a scientist bash religion (Dawkins is a scientist but hes also a philosopher of sorts)

if religion had a foot to stand on it wouldnt be "bashed" in the first place. obviously there must be no validity to it if the most intelligent minds in the scientific community see fault with it.

and please....you guys have got to stop thinking that scientists are out to disprove religion because they see it as competition against evolution. thats just idiotic.

i think you people WANT scientists to do that.

Answer 8

Science never claims to have the last answer for anything, only the best answer with the current evidence. That it actually is agreeable to retesting when new evidence presents itself and willing to change it's ideas if the evidence justifies it tells me it's always looking for truth.

I would be wary of something that didn't accept that kind of scrutiny.... know anybody like that ?

Answer 9

Let's ignore the flaws in your example:

Science: Start with a certain theory, refine it gradually based on observations and experiments, and perhaps one day even replace it when a better theory is found.

Religion: Start believing is certain ideas with no basis, never change your mind.

Which of these seems unreasonable to you?

Answer 10

Well at least you've shown everyone in this forum WHY you got such poor grades in science.

You dont understand scientific method in the slightest degree, I'd explain but I don't think you'd get it.

Oh, and thanks for the joke about you contributing to science. You have as much chance of that as I do being made a saint.

Answer 11

I think you should have paid a little closer attention in science class. In order for science to provide meaningful information, it MUST be dedicated to materialism and nominalism. While this means that science will always reject some truths for lack of evidence, it means that scientific theories are valid, and scientific laws are absolutely true.