[Hugin]

A very good description of how science is supposed to work. The problem with some folks is if you believe that a particular book is 100% the unerring word of God then you cannot allow even one tiny part of it to be shown inaccurate or your whole world view is demolished. They then project that onto scientific theory, attempting to say that if any part of a theory has problems it disproves the whole. Science doesn’t work that way, but you cannot argue with a closed mind, be it religious faith or global warming pseudo science.

[Telepathic Intruder]

"The problem with some folks is if you believe that a particular book is 100% the unerring word of God then you cannot allow even one tiny part of it to be shown inaccurate "

But we know that the Bible contains a lot of metaphor. Am I supposed to believe that knowledge is a fruit growing on a tree somewhere near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers? We have to use some common sense. I don't believe the Bible is a science text book any more than I believe science can tell us about God. One is a painter and the other is a painting, metaphorically. You can't know Picasso by studying his paintings.

The problem I have with rejecting science for religion is this: if we have to limit God to our understanding of Him, doesn't that just mean our faith in Him is small? We can't be afraid to look too closely at nature for fear of our faith being challenged.

[Theophilus]

In order to "allow" something, one must set themselves above that thing.

Isaiah 40:8 
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

When every word of every Scientific American article ever written and we are forgotten, the word of our God shall stand forever.