RE: "In 100 years, our vision of science will be laughed at".
January 10, 2011 at 6:42 am
(This post was last modified: January 10, 2011 at 7:03 am by Anomalocaris.)
Rwandrall Wrote:This 6 wise men tale does not apply all the time because some theories (like earth being flat or the earth being 6000 years old) have been rejected completely. Who knows which of our theories will be rejected 100 years from now ?
I constantly see atheists saying "i believe in Science, not imaginary friends", but since Science is ever moving and changing, it is not really this solid block of stone upon which we can rest our reasoning, what is true today can be false tomorrow.
Flat earth is not rejected completely for it is a fair approximation of the shape of that part of the earth the size of a backyard, a block, a town, or a cities. But it takes the combined efforts of people working over cities hundreds of miles apart to determine that the earth is in fact not flat. So flat earth contributes to the notional absolute truth of globular earth by showing the earth is not significantly curved until one reaches scales of hundreds of miles.
6000 year old earth was the brain child of one Bishop Ussher of Armagh. It was never a theory of science. The first scientific estimate of the age of the earth was made by James Hutton. He simply asserted that evidence from the earth deemed the earth to be much older than bishop Ussher's 4004 BC creation date could accommodate. He most certainly was right, and contributed to the notional absolute truth that the biblical creation date was constrained by the limits of an pious but ignorant and unobservant mind and was full of shit.
What is found to be true today in science contributes to what will, upon further examination, be found to be true tomorrow. What is deemed true today in theology contributes nothing to what can rationally and verifiably be found to be the truth either today, yesterday, or tomorrow. So take your pick from that which contributes to the absolutely truth in one way or another, but admits to not being the absolute truth itself on the one hand, and that which claims with pompous grandiosity to be the absolute truth itself from the get go, but can be demonstrated to bear no relation to truth of any kind through the entire process. Theists, enamored with the claim, Chooses the latter. What will you choose?
