Challenge: name one instance when Science was wrong and Religion was right. (faith, believer)
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.
Nothing. Zilch. Nada... they'll never give you an example of where the bible was right and science was wrong because they can't. It doesn't exist.
The Amazing Randi still has a $1 million award for anybody who can prove the supernatural. It has gone uncollected for decades. You should add this challenge to those seeking a similar reward.... it's fun to see people try.
The Julian Calendar, proven wrong by Pope Gregory.
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.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-16-2012 at 04:26 PM..
You are about 70 years too late on that one. As I said the technique for photographing it has been know about since 1939. I mean all you have to do is believe your lying eyes. Hell if you don't trust your lying eyes do the experiment I laid out for you and you can feel the other person's aura. 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.
I hate to burst your bubble, er, aura, but it's been conclusively shown that the "auras" seen in kirlian photography are directly affected by moisture and the amount of electricity you're pumping through your object and... that's about it. Note too, that effective kirlian photographs have been taken of things like coins, which ought not to give off bio-electric energy, unless you accept the existence of living coinage.
So, your "aura" is a not a product of your bio-electric energy or anything like that. Rather it's a reflection of how wet you were while being electrocuted. Mystic stuff, indeed.
Sure, they may collect it, but there is no way you can call psychology anything other than a soft science. Look it up.
LOL I have a doctorate in a social science, thanks. No need to look it up. My point is that if soft science means we cannot collect empirical evidence, as argued by the earlier poster's wife, then that definition is dead wrong.
If you guys are going to laugh at religious folk for making outrageous assumptions (which you should), then you should at least know what you're posting about when defending science, lest we rational types look bad as well.
I hate to burst your bubble, er, aura, but it's been conclusively shown that the "auras" seen in kirlian photography are directly affected by moisture and the amount of electricity you're pumping through your object and... that's about it. Note too, that effective kirlian photographs have been taken of things like coins, which ought not to give off bio-electric energy, unless you accept the existence of living coinage.
So, your "aura" is a not a product of your bio-electric energy or anything like that. Rather it's a reflection of how wet you were while being electrocuted. Mystic stuff, indeed.
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.
It's a simple challenge, really. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you could name a single instance in all of human history, although coming up with more than three would probably be impossible.
By "Science", mean a discovery proposed by a significant portion of the scientific community that based on a version of the modern scientific method. That is very distinct from philosophy.
Of course, there have been instances when scientists were wrong, but the beauty of the field is that they ended up correcting themselves, and did not burn dissenters at the stake. What I want is an example in which the dominant religious institution, through religious means, proved a scientific position wrong.
So scientists thought X, religious leader said no, you're wrong, and the latter turned out to be right.
And I'm referring to objective truths, not morality or philosophy.
After all, religion by definition is dogmatic and doesn't change -- it's already being guided by omnipotence, right? Modern science is still relatively new, and getting more and more accurate every year. So the chances of the latter being wrong decreases every generation, while the accuracy of the former at best stays the same. So if you cannot find a single instance where bible thumpers were right on biology or climate science, then arguing that they are right for the one time in human history is...well, just plain dumb.
Also, I don't want any circular responses, such as "they are right on intelligent design now!" or "they are right that Christ is our savior!". I want claims made by the church that have been empirically demonstrated to be superior to a counter-claim by the scientific community.
Last time, I bet 100 imaginary bucks. This time, I'm going all out and offering my entire imaginary salary to any person who can actually come up with one example.
And I'll give up every imaginary dollar I make in my lifetime to anyone who can come up with more than five nontrivial examples, and furthermore repute every one of your posts that I ever read.
Calling a pigs tooth a prehistoric mans tooth.
Calling Lucy the missing link.
Using carbon dating to determine how old something is.
I know they arent scientific enough for you but you didnt specify about how wrong and what particular science to address.
Using carbon dating to determine how old something is.
I know they arent scientific enough for you but you didnt specify about how wrong and what particular science to address.
A reference to a rather old error ('Nebraska man' isn't it?) shown up by proper science.
Nobody but religious apologists trying to discredit evolution calls 'Lucy' the 'mising link' but even if we did, Australopithecus, with clear evidence of habitual bipedalism in a very chimp -like skeleton is a better candidate than most. And trying to discredit carbon - dating at this stage of the day is like trying to deny the reality of radiation.
You have some reading to do before you can expect to be taken seriously anywhere other than a creationist rally.
A reference to a rather old error ('Nebraska man' isn't it?) shown up by proper science.
Nobody but religious apologists trying to discredit evolution calls 'Lucy' the 'mising link' but even if we did, Australopithecus, with clear evidence of habitual bipedalism in a very chimp -like skeleton is a better candidate than most. And trying to discredit carbon - dating at this stage of the day is like trying to deny the reality of radiation.
You have some reading to do before you can expect to be taken seriously anywhere other than a creationist rally.
Indeed Robin does, and TalkOrigins.org is merely one good place to start.
great user name - who are you - music man or something?
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. 
Hell if you don't trust your lying eyes do the experiment I laid out for you and you can feel the other person's aura. 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.
