“Your contempt for the field of science in general is duly noted.”
Interesting interpretation of what I said, coming from one with such an “open Mind” about opinions. Contempt has nothing to do with noting a “field” (I thought it was a discipline) prone to HUGE mistakes. My point was that there was a lot of room for doubt with a discipline that has a background of such monumental mistakes. That does not equate to contempt, just doubt. I do not have contempt for my sister, for instance, even though she has been wrong about many things, but I do not trust everything she says...I will not wait for an apology...
“Interesting interpretation of what I said, coming from one with such an “open Mind” about opinions. Contempt has nothing to do with noting a “field” (I thought it was a discipline) prone to HUGE mistakes.”
You seem to be saying that mistakes in science are in some way a negative—that is not a surprise to me. I have never met a creation rationalizationist who had any real understanding of the scientific method. Science is a process of conclusion, correction, conclusion, correction, etc. With each iteration, we get closer to the truth. Compare that to creation rationalization which proudly and loudly proclaims its mistake to the world with absolutely no mechanism for self-correction.