By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 07 September 2011
Edit Thread
padib said:

1. I readdressed that part by saying it's not religious people, it's bad christians who are the problem. Unfortunately bad christians are the majority.

2. WHAHAHAHAHA

Guess who were the main opponents of heliocentrism. Guess who were the main opponents of Darwin. Hint: the church.

And don't act like science today is anything like science many hundred years (or in some cases, thousands) ago...things aren't as ignorantly held in belief like they once were.

1. Okay, but still do your best. It makes it hard to join these forums, trust me. I'm not being overly sensitive it really is tough to bear. I don't think you would like that in return.

2. What does that have to do with anything. I was aware of that and I assumed you were reasonable enough to look at what mattered in the example I used, in that it was a false theory. Again, you do realize that Copernicus and Gallileo were faithful believers.

3. I can tell  you that there are many theories today that, like back then, will be invalidated. Maybe, given an even greater pool of thought, that there will be even more today, and that they are even more complex, than those back then.

Also, please reread my post. I answered to your point.

both copernicus and darwin feared for their lives over the things they had discovered. Such impediments do not exist today. Do not confuse the two. Things will be invalidated as a course of science, as that is the natural progression of science. It is not some arbitrary decision process. When you compare the past and the present, you have very different environmental factors.

And it's not like someone is going to go, "hey look turns out evolution is false". A theory isn't going to get upturned just like that. The only really big thing debated nowadays is climate change. That one is a big political battle in the end, but every step of the way, the scientists FOR man-made climate change are making headway. At first, politically charged scientists didn't even agree that climate change was happening. Now they all agree, but argue over what is causing it. Soon, that argument will be over, and they'll argue over whether we can do things to change it, and then they'll argue whether c02 has any real effect. And I'm sorry that I have to tell it like it is, but It's no surprise that one side of the argument is religiously charged. And have already been wrong once in these debates.