science got us to the moon - then we found out the science was wrong?

Date: Sat Jan 25 2003 - 15:35:25 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Friends, Expats, and war"

    In a message dated 1/25/03 12:30:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:

    > I had written: "I have commented before on the rather silly concept of a
    > "scientific proof."
    > rich responded: "I came to this list because you were all Christians and
    > scientists. How can one dialog scientifically with the above?"
    burgy responded:

    > Perhaps by asking what I mean, and why I used the word "silly" to describe a
    > concept.
    Am I going to have to ask you what the definition of 'is' is? The phrase 'the
    silly concept of a "scientific proof"' seems pretty self explanatory to me.
    If you want to be concise, I welcome that, but don't fault me for failing to
    interpret what on the face of it are the simplest of your statements.
    > Science works by induction (mostly). The game of science is to think up
    > models, usually math models, which describe observational data and suggest
    > future research which will either support those models ar falsify them.
    > In no case that I know about does science "prove" anything. Models become
    > more and more supported over time, of course, until they are often referred
    > to as "facts." But even "facts" are subject to being disproven at some
    > future time.
    > Scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.
    > Does that help?
    We've been to the moon and back. I don't expect any of the science that made
    that possible to be refuted anytime soon. Does that help?

    > Rich also wrote (in part): "...many gays attend my church. We don't talk
    > about one another's sins. We just build community."
    > burgy asked:
    > That's certainly one goal of a church fellowship. What church
    > (denomination) are you?
    stated previously but irrelevant here
    rich said:
    > "The suggestion that I am intolerant or hateful because I hold this position
    > is absolutely ridiculous."
    > burgy responded:
    > I don't know that anyone suggested this, much less said it overtly.
    rich responds:
    I didn't say you suggested it. The liberal agenda constantly suggests this. I
    thought that was common knowledge. It's been said in the papers, on the boob
    tube. I'll get references if you want. I just thought this was common

    "Gays should defer to those who carry the full weight of the Cross. That is
    not intolerant or hateful. That is logical and appropriate."
    > burgy:
    > I am sorry. I have no idea what you mean by this. Do you mean that some of
    > our fellow Christians are second class members? I hope not.
    You didn't read the post and didn't reproduce the lines preceding this.
    Married couples who go to the great expense of reproducing and raising
    children have not modified Christianity to suit themselves. Homosexuals would
    modify Christianity to suit their life style which does not place the extra
    burden on them of reproducing and raising children, a financial burden that
    with costs of education is many, many thousands of dollars per child.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jan 25 2003 - 15:35:46 EST