RockSmith372 said:
chubaca is right on this. Theories, laws, and hypothesis must be constantly and rigorously tested to see if they have flaws. If they do, they must find a new theory, law, hypothesis that can better explain the evidence. You think evolution has been the same for the last 150 years. Darwin had no idea about mutations, DNA, even how inheritance worked like Mendel did, but none of those things ruined the original theory of evolution. It just revised them in that fit with the evidence. Same with the theory of gravity, cell theory, theory of relativity, etc. |
^^ exactly. that's actually the main difference between science and religion, it's that science is 'revisable' when new infirmation is found that further makes the theory better, whereas in religion's case you can't just 'revise' something as it is supposedly the word of god and therefore by definition it is 100% true, and as a result anything somebody happens to find either agrees with what god says or is false
this is why creationists seem stubborn at times, it's not cuz they are, it's just their beleifs that lead them to test everything being said in the world against the words of their god, then make judgement on whether it's true or not. no matter how much evidence is supporting what's being said, if it doesn't agree with what god says then it's false (...unless it's truly undeniable, then it becomes "what god meant by that sentence" :p)
