The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Esquilax]

Let me guess, you pulled this from the same place you're storing the remnants of last night's dinner.

That was the calculations of Edward Teller the guy that designed the hydrogen bomb.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/septe...t-924.html

His constant attempts to get support for the "Super," as he called it, were seen by many, including Oppenheimer, as a distraction. He became even more of a distraction when he produced equations that showed the possibility that a fission weapon could ignite the world's atmosphere.

So, first of all, are you seriously conflating one man's calculations with the entire scientific community? By that logic, every christian is a child molester.

Second of all, possibility is what was discussed here. Nobody was saying that it definitely would happen, but since all science is probabilistic that went without saying for all of us that actually understand how science works. Not that any of this matters, as admitting when you're wrong is not a weakness, it's a strength. It's called "learning." What, would you prefer that whenever science is wrong, it just keeps claiming that it's right? That's what you want?

You want science to act like religion? Like you?

In fact, you want to compare track records? I guess you must, since you said this:

If the Bible backtracked as much as "science" does, I defiantly wouldn't believe in it.

So let's do that: science, even being wrong on occasion, has offered us a more complete mastery of our world than anything else in the history of our planet. It has sent us into space, healed the sick, put the entire world within the grasp of any individual person with air travel, created global communication networks, and increased the human lifespan greatly.

Conversely, religion, where it makes testable claims at all, has never made a correct pronouncement. Not once, in the history of mankind, has a purely religious claim ever been proven true, and in fact, they have all been proven conclusively false. The track record, if you want to compare, has religion at a zero.

If science was utterly wrong as much as religion, I defiantly wouldn't believe in it. But you do, Huggy, and that blatant inconsistency in your position shows, yet again, that what this really is is you, having a presupposition, and scrabbling for arguments that confirm that presupposition without really thinking about them.

But maybe next time you could try not denigrating science on a machine developed by science, over a communication network developed by science, while being alive because of science, you ungrateful ass.