Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This may come as a total shocker (just kidding, I already know it will), but science has a built-in obsolescence factor: it enters every study knowing what it 'proves' today will be rejected as false tomorrow.
So by your measure, science is horribly wrong on a consistent basis.

In science, the goal is to gain a deeper understanding of the natural world.
This means that assumptions about the natural world that can be
demonstrated to be false must be discarded. So, yes, theories are often
revised, updated and sometimes discarded, but to say that whatever is
proven today is rejected as false tomorrow, surely is a monstrous
exaggeration?

I have a feeling that between the two of you, googlefudge holds the
deeper understanding of what science is all about.

Originally posted by C Hess
How does the two first sentences googlefudge wrote contradict each other?
How is his assertions about historical time "demonstrably" false? You may wish
to demonstrate it, when you make a comment like that.

If gf dealt in reality, he wouldn't make the second claim.

Read his sentence again and see if you can figure it out.

Originally posted by C Hess
In science, the goal is to gain a deeper understanding of the natural world.
This means that assumptions about the natural world that can be
demonstrated to be false must be discarded. So, yes, theories are often
revised, updated and sometimes discarded, but to say that whatever is
proven today is rejected as false tomorrow, surely is a monstrous
ex ...[text shortened]... tween the two of you, googlefudge holds the
deeper understanding of what science is all about.

So, yes, theories are often revised, updated and sometimes discarded, but to say that whatever is proven today is rejected as false tomorrow, surely is a monstrous exaggeration?
"Today" is any day.
"Tomorrow" is any day in the future of "today."
In some groups who speak the English language, this is known as a figure of speech.

I have a feeling that between the two of you, googlefudge holds the deeper understanding of what science is all about.
I wouldn't know.
All I can go by are his confused pronouncements.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There isn't a man on the face of the planet who holds to the idea of a non-existent God who didn't first believe such a being exists.

I can say with one hundred percent certainty that this is a false statement.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
each and every one of these figures have traceable origins.
The idea of God, however, is an indelible aspect of the human experience.

I would have thought the god of Abraham could be traced to, well, Abraham, but what do I know.

Originally posted by C Hess
I can say with one hundred percent certainty that this is a false statement.

We can all say anything.
The problem is, you cannot prove it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
We can all say anything.
The problem is, you cannot prove it.

I don't have to prove it. Whether or not you accept that I've never believed
in anything supernatural is of little concern to me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
"Today" is any day.
"Tomorrow" is any day in the future of "today."
In some groups who speak the English language, this is known as a figure of speech.

In what way does this mitigate the gross exaggeration of your claim?

Originally posted by C Hess
In what way does this mitigate the gross exaggeration of your claim?

To begin with, if a person is using a figure of speech, it's an error to call the figure of speech a gross exaggeration: by its very existence, a figure of speech is intended to be non-literal.

The rest?
Well, you already supported it with your responses: science is ever-changing.
Right today, wrong tomorrow... moving on.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Read his sentence again and see if you can figure it out.

It makes perfect sense to me. From the perspective of physical reality genesis
is total bunk. Who could possibly deny that with a straight face?

Originally posted by C Hess
It makes perfect sense to me. From the perspective of physical reality genesis
is total bunk. Who could possibly deny that with a straight face?

That's not the sentence you were referencing, but let's play jazz anyway.

What physical reality renders Genesis "bunk?"

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To begin with, if a person is using a figure of speech, it's an error to call the figure of speech a gross exaggeration: by its very existence, a figure of speech is intended to be non-literal.

The rest?
Well, you already supported it with your responses: science is ever-changing.
Right today, wrong tomorrow... moving on.

LOL! I gotta hand it to you. You're entertaining.

Even if you mean it as non-literal, you are suggesting that the norm is:
what is proven right today will be proven wrong tomorrow, and that's simply
not true.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What physical reality renders Genesis "bunk?"

Well, the most obvious is still the part where daylight comes before sunlight.
Physical reality tells us that daylight is the result of the sun, but genesis
teach us that the sun was created after daylight.

Originally posted by C Hess
LOL! I gotta hand it to you. You're entertaining.

Even if you mean it as non-literal, you are suggesting that the norm is:
what is proven right today will be proven wrong tomorrow, and that's simply
not true.

and that's simply not true.
Here's your science assignment for today.
Name the oldest accepted scientific position.
'Oldest' means time span from pronouncement until now and/or rejection in favor of updated idea.
'Accepted' means general consensus.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Name the oldest accepted scientific position.

What do you mean by position? A theory?