No, science corrects it's mistakes.
Dogma and belief can't do that.
>>>I guess thats science right? I mean you don’t agree with
>>>what the data points to so you hide the data.
>>No, science corrects it’s mistakes.
>>Dogma and belief can’t do that.
This “scientist” never doubted the veracity of his paper since 1955, and because it’s cited as evidence FOR creationism, it’s retracted in the name of “science correcting it’s mistakes”
“Dogma” is the notion of us evolving from goo.
“Dogma” is the notion that a finite being (you) is 100% certain that God does not exist.
“Belief” is the proposition that complex organisms that make a F-22 Raptor look like Legos could have assembled from “primordial soup”
It takes more “belief” to be an atheist/evolutionist, frankly.
>>>I guess thats science right? I mean you don’t agree with
>>>what the data points to so you hide the data.
>>No, science corrects it’s mistakes.
>>Dogma and belief can’t do that.
In the good old days, when scientists believed the bible, they used to *cure diseases*. Nowadays, they just help you live with it.
Exactly why evolution can’t be considered science. Evidence running counter to your dogma being pointed out? Why, just sweep it under the rug! “It never existed, you silly creationist wacko!”
The better reason to retract a peer-reviewed, published paper would be that you found a flaw in your own argument, or some other defect in the paper (e.g. new evidence that contradicted old assumptions).
The worst reason to retract a peer-reviewed, published paper would be that you didn’t like the ideological implications that were inferred by honest work.
“No, science corrects it’s mistakes.”
So what was his mistake? That he published data that pointed to something he didn’t believe in?
“Dogma and belief can’t do that.”
Totally agree, this is a perfect example that dogma forces people to close their eyes to reality. So much so that they will retract data; not because its wrong but because it doesn’t support their belief.
When your belief structure in science is right or wrong based on what is built on it, it is dogma to remove it. The thesis should stand on its own feet, and not care what others build with it.
Modern science is dogma, science a hundred years ago was far more scientific. They built their findings into where they did not know. Now they build only where it fits what they "know". One cannot find new ground if one is only going to look where one knows.
But then, flat earthers have controlled science for a long time and called round earthers heritics. They still do. True scientists all know the earth is billions of years old, despite the evidence that debunks it. All those intelegent designers are just thinking out of the nice safe box and are heritics.
Dogma and belief can't do that.
Ohhhhh. Hit a nerve with this one, to judge by the replies!
Creationists thought they had a magic bullet, but the author retracted his paper and they are left holding the bag!
What a joke! Now, creationists will have to abandon this paper and catch up with 50+ more years of research!
Oh, no! What'll we do now?
Research? But that's hard work! (Let's go the mall instead.)
It's --> contraction of "it is" : "It's Bob!" she cried.
Its --> possessive form of "It" : Its wheels were enormous.
Cheers!