Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems like a lot of people are so eager to bash scienticts when in reality you benefit quite a bit from them. Medications, medical advances, machines through which you carry out your day to day living. All have some root in science.
If you're so eager to distrust scientists, I recommend you abandon use of all technology and become Amish or some equivalent.
Honestly it is like hearing a bunch of school bullies making fun of a smart kid for getting one question wrong on a test. Pretty childish.....
I think you are connecting dots that should not be connected.
Scientists are quite valuable to society, and have discovered many things that we enjoy. But discovering medications which have been proven to be useful is not even in the same league as the scientists who waste our time trying to determine what happened 300 billion years ago.
Most of us love and appreciate smart people. And most of us put very little faith and value in the scientific efforts to project millions of years into the past.
Science is frequently very wrong, particularly when they espouse things that cannot be proven. Remember, it was the smartest scientists in the world that insisted that the world was flat.
I think you are connecting dots that should not be connected.
Scientists are quite valuable to society, and have discovered many things that we enjoy. But discovering medications which have been proven to be useful is not even in the same league as the scientists who waste our time trying to determine what happened 300 billion years ago.
Most of us love and appreciate smart people. And most of us put very little faith and value in the scientific efforts to project millions of years into the past.
Science is frequently very wrong, particularly when they espouse things that cannot be proven. Remember, it was the smartest scientists in the world that insisted that the world was flat.
Guess it all depends on who, or what, is paying them.
You may be right. Then again, you may be wrong. Nobody will ever know.
Putting faith in multi million or even billion year projections is quite risky. The entire process is based on assumptions that cannot be proven. And if one of the basic assumptions is wrong, then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
I find this field of study like two grade school boys playing war with their plastic soldiers. It's certainly fun and rewarding, but it produces nothing worth anything other than a spirited debate. And if you can get paid a tidy sum for doing it, more power to you.
The age of the earth is as certain as the stars you see in the sky!
Quote:
Distant Starlight - A light-year is the maximum distance that light can travel in one year in the vacuum of space. Consequently, it takes billions of years for light to travel billions of light-years through space. From our vantage point here on Earth we can see light from stars that are billions of light-years away. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that our universe is at least billions of years old—old enough to give the light from these stars enough time to reach our planet billions of light-years away.
I know exactly what faith is. And people do have faith in science. People have faith that some scientists projections are accurate. There is no way to prove them, so you must have faith to believe them.
AGW and the big bang theory are just two examples. Neither can be proven, so you must have faith in scientists.
Yes, gravity can be proven. Over and over again. AGW cannot be proven and neither can the theory that man evolved from a one cell amoeba. The evolution of man is a THEORY and can never be proven.
Your issues with people who refuse to consider the evidence apply to both sides. Blindly following scientific theory is no more intelligent than following a religious teaching. Some choose to have faith in scientists, others have faith in their religion.
No, some believe in the Mountain of evidence as being the truth, and not just evolutionary science, every earth science supports the scientific "Theory" of evolution and the earths formation. Blind faith in a story written by men that still believed the sun revolved around a flat earth is NOT scientific evidence but only blind faith and is fine for some. FYI there is no requirement that one believes in the Creation story as told by men to enter heaven, so n the long run it means nothing other than for interesting discussion. I wonder wy it is so many under-estimate the Power of GOD and assume he could not know what we would become through the process of evolution, if you plant a seed do you not know what will grow?
Casper
That is one of the hypotheses believers have floated for the dismal failure of the C-14 test. There is no reason to believe it is true.
That said... the shroud was a known hoax when it first came to light. The Bishop of Troyes, Henri of Poitiers, testified that he spoke to the man who created it and that it was a fake. When the shroud continued to be displayed, Henri's successor, Pierre d'Archis, wrote a letter of protest about the shroud to Pope Clement VII, recalling his predecessor's conclusions, and stating his own conviction "that the Shroud is a product of human handicraft ... a cloth cunningly painted by a man."
The Pope declared that the shroud could still be displayed, but only on the condition that a priest be in attendance to announce to all present, in a loud and intelligible voice, without any trickery, that the shroud was not the true burial cloth of Jesus, but only a painting or made as a form or representation of the burial cloth.
There's plenty of reason to believe it true (regarding the testing). Another complication is bacteria. The whole matter could be put to rest if more detailed testing were done, of more areas (areas not in doubt as to being original to the shroud versus areas repaired after the fire).
That info. regarding the Bishop of Troyes is correct, however, given the politics and economics of the day surrounding any relics, it can't be taken at face value alone.
Science isn't dogma. "Science" is nothing more that a process of observation and methodological transparency. So no. "Science" isn't fallible. Particular pieces of research are, which is a major part of the FOUNDATION of science, rather than an example of its undoing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
