Challenge: name one instance when Science was wrong and Religion was right. (salvation, atheism)
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.
great user name - who are you - music man or something?
Intriguing, isn't it?
I thought I'd check up that it was 'Nebraska man' (1920's!) that Robins69 was on about. I found an alarming amount of use of this non -event as a Creationist club used to bash evilution with so I thought I'd better underpin my remark that is was an error that science corrected rather than made. Perhaps Robbie was misled by the creationist clamour but I stand by saying that there is some reading required, and Talk origins is, indeed, a useful check on the Creationist claims.
"...Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible."
Thanks. The Kirlian 'aura' photos were (like Conan Doyle's fairies) current when I was a kid (1) but are now shown to be not what was claimed. A classic example of the need to look at other possible explanations, control in experimentation and the persistent reluctance of the believers to check the 'evidence' that is trotted out in support of their arguments.
(1) I remember some were of beech - leaves which were also resultantly supposed to have auras.
I recall the leaf photos. When the leaves were torn and photographed again with part missing, the aura faintly outlined the original shape. However, when the slide was cleaned and dried between photographs, this residual aura failed to show. It was concluded that it was caused by residual moisture left on the slide.
I recall the leaf photos. When the leaves were torn and photographed again with part missing, the aura faintly outlined the original shape. However, when the slide was cleaned and dried between photographs, this residual aura failed to show. It was concluded that it was caused by residual moisture left on the slide.
Well. so far I haven't seen any example of religion getting right a claim which science got wrong. There have been a couple by Chango of particular requirements which science later on tended to agree with but it is not clear that these were actually related to the science, however I did give some credit to the various religion injunctions against health hazards (eg cleanliness in Leviticus - whatever the reason was) apart from that it has all been pretty poor with some weirdo stuff like auras, which are hardly anything to do with bible claims, the smacking of the forehead against the high-jump bar of the Julian calendar and some wittering about STD.
Not much after 8 pages. Compared to everything on which science has corrected the Bible.
Do what? The minor discrepancy had been known from the time of Hipparchus but Caesar didn't bother about that which is hardly the fault of science. in the time of pope Gregory the discrepancy (1) has mounted up until something had to be done and Gregory in his papal bull revised the calendar by adding on a fiddly leap year, thus complicating matters by introducing a dual calendar for those who still though the Julian was liturgically correct for calculating feast days.
In the meantime, the findings of the scientist Hipparchus are as valid now as they were then.
(1) possibly the Intelligent Designer thought near enough was good enough.
lI understand what you are saying, which is absolutely correct. However, in the spirit of the topic as described by the OP, it was an order of the Church that corrected what up until then had been a faulty decree fostered by the known science of the day. In short, Religion corrected what Science did not correct.
lI understand what you are saying, which is absolutely correct. However, in the spirit of the topic as described by the OP, it was an order of the Church that corrected what up until then had been a faulty decree fostered by the known science of the day. In short, Religion corrected what Science did not correct.
I don't think that's an entirely correct assessment. Granted, the calendar was changed by papal decree, but it was based off scientific observation. The new calendar itself wasn't designed by the church, rather they outsourced the problem to Lilius, a doctor and astronomer.
So, I'm not sure whether we ought to count it or not. It appears that Religion made the right call based on Science's advice.
lI understand what you are saying, which is absolutely correct. However, in the spirit of the topic as described by the OP, it was an order of the Church that corrected what up until then had been a faulty decree fostered by the known science of the day. In short, Religion corrected what Science did not correct.
As I implied, the error was known to the science long before, but Caesar who was a politician (and if I am not mistaken) Pontifex maximus, too (1) ignored that in his calendar - corrected by Pope Gregory. The error is down to the administration if not to religion as such. All Gregory did was find a stopgap solution. There was no correction of the science which had it right long before. And religion (which is to say the Bible, here) was not in some way 'right' about the length of the year when science was mistaken, that is not in the spirit of the topic.
(1) Yep. "....Under his authority as Pontifex Maximus, Gaius Julius Caesar introduced the calendar reform that created the Julian calendar, with a fault of less than a day per century, and which remained the standard till the Gregorian reform in the 16th century..." (Wiki)
Oh I'm sorry ..I must of clicked on the wrong button, I was looking something interesting and this one was solved and checked off a while ago..(will try to be more careful in the future.
The "examples" I'm seeing here, and that I hear all the time by the faithful, are examples of when science is wrong. Science is wrong all the time! But future scientists IMPROVE upon our knowledge by falsifying bad hypotheses and building better scientific models as a result. This is what leads to progress.
On the other hand, religion purports to know the answer already, and finds "evidence" to support their conclusions, in blatant disregard of the scientific method. This is why religion contributes NOTHING scientifically to society. Bottom line: Science is often wrong...but religion has never been right.
If you think about it it is not at all surprising that humans give off bio electrical energy since we are basically living tissue filled with water.
Hmmm. So is this... (it will have a countable percentage of bacterial organisms in it (living tissue...), unless the water was boiled first, which not too many mothers do when making up the kid's drinks...)
And yet, no detectable aura. Well, maybe Jim Jones' pitcher had an "aura". Why yes, I believe it did: you may be right after all!
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.
The minor discrepancy had been known from the time of Hipparchus but Caesar didn't bother about that which is hardly the fault of science. in the time of pope Gregory the discrepancy (1) has mounted up until something had to be done and Gregory in his papal bull revised the calendar by adding on a fiddly leap year, thus complicating matters by introducing a dual calendar for those who still though the Julian was liturgically correct for calculating feast days. 
