So science knows nothing, huh? Science can't possibly be right about anything...?

Question

... after all, even with mountains of evidence for things like Evolution, its still wrong...

And yet, science has managed to discover a way to levitate small objects.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070806/sc_...

Remember, if science was wrong, you wouldn't have that computer you're using right now because it wouldn't work.

Unfortunately, I know this isn't going to change anything at all with the fundies. They'll just dismiss it like they always do.

Because in their mind, science is always wrong. Science is a guess. And yet it works.

Thaea dear, remember the thing called school? Might like to look into it. There are lots of missing links. You denying them makes YOU wrong. You not being educated enough to understand it makes you ignorant.

RIF, science is not a god. Its a tool. Your god does not exist, our tool tells us that. You might try using it sometime to actually learn something.

Lady Morgana, I couldn't agree more. I have to say, I envy you. We recently had one of the Leakey's speak at a presentation in my city. Unfortunately, I had to work so I missed it. Wish I could have gone. From what I've heard, it was an excellent presentation.

Answer 1

If I could, I would kiss the ring that every scientist wears and thank that person for the insight and the knowledge they have brought to our glorious world.

Evolution is obviously true. I was fortunate enough as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley to have Dr. Tim White as my anthropology teacher, and he went on to become one of the leading scientists to find and name the Australopithicus Afarensis species. He was and is a brilliant man, and I knew I was standing in the presence of greatness. And let me tell you...no one would have dared to question the validity of evolution in his presence!

Let's get all the Fundies, round them up, send them to Dr. White's classroom!! He'd larn them sorry ast guys a thang er two, I tell you what fer.....

Here's to evolution!
Lady Morgana )0(

Answer 2

scientific knowledge is particularly true. religious knowledge is often held to be absolutely and wholly true, but science is not. that is, science works often enough that many of the particulars must be true. science is not all-or-nothing, like some religions are said to be. just because a computer works is no guarantee that (for example) plate tectonics is correct - the particular principles involved are not the same. science involves trying to isolate the particulars and investigate them, as far as possible, independently of everything else. it is that *process* that apparently works. unaccountably, some people think that the fact that science does not produce absolute truth is a weakness... it seems they prefer to claim absolute truth whether they actually have it or not. sometimes they also project this desire of theirs onto scientists - if they say yes, we are pretty sure about that one actually, and your idea is just laughably wrong, the scientists are accused of claiming absolute truth.

Answer 3

Operational science can test ideas in the present-----that is where we get our computers!

But in the case of proving molecules to man evolution, that is called origins science or historical science. Unlike operational science, it can't be tested in the present. It involves interpreting evidence from the past.

One's presuppositions help to determine how the evidence is interpreted. We all have the same evidence.
The evidence fits the creation account in the Bible.
Fossils do not need millions of years to form.
There are no reliable transitional fossils.
There is no simple life form----think of how complex a cell is.
There is too much order in creation to deny intelligent design.

Answer 4

Don't you go stickin that college-boy crap at me! Ma pastor told me that them thar evolutin lovers are the sodimites that satan sent to trick the good folk o' tha bible belt. Aint no monkey be ma uncle! No siree! Floatin doo-hickies, sounds like tha work o' tha devil to me!

And on a serious note: THAEA: what missing link? There are over a many transition forms between our last common ancestors with the great apes and modern humans.
Intermediate fossils include


Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

AND ONE MORE TO RIF: I love you people, you're so predictable! Here's why you're wrong:
All known fossils of ancient humans would fit on a billiard table (or in a coffin).
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 202.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, 86.
Response:
That may have been true at one time, but there are thousands of hominid fossils now. Lubenow (1992) found that there were fossils from almost 4,000 hominid individuals catalogued as of 1976. As of 1999, there were fossils of about 150 Homo erectus individuals, 90 Australopithecus robustus, 150 Australopithecus afarensis, 500 Neanderthals, and more (Handprint 1999). Foley (2004) lists some of the more prominent fossils.


It takes only a handful of fossils to show that hominid forms have changed over time

Answer 5

Is science like a god to you people? Why is it so very difficult for you people to realize that not every one shares your fanatical zeal for science? And as for the computer I'm using, did you personally invent it? Did you have a hand in its invention? Mountains of evidence for evolution? How many times are we going to cover this false claim? All the so-called skeletal "evidence" for evolution would fit on top of a standard size desk. That hardly counts for "mountains of evidence".

Answer 6

Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions!!!! I have absolutely no problem with science. My problem with science lies with those that continually insist that there is a conflict between science and religion and there isn't. "Mountains of evidence" can be applied just as rightly to the evidence for intelligent design, but you ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notion that there is no God. You just take the evidence that fits your view and run with it, ignoring all the rest. Science is simply a tool, not a god to worship.

Answer 7

hehe.
Excellent argument- if science is always wrong, theists wouldn't have computers to argue that science is a lie.

Answer 8

SCIENCE IS WRONG!!!! HAHAHAHA lol science is always right that's why it's called science. it's only because people are so simple minded!

Answer 9

Science certainly isn't always wrong, any more than any other fad, or superstition.

Answer 10

Science can teach you almost everything, but it can't teach you how to be a good person.