“You seem to be saying that mistakes in science are in some way a negative—that is not a surprise to me.”
Well, then you are a true scientist. Mistakes are a negative - they are a result of misintrpretation (intentional or not) that leads to a false conclusion. Sometimes, mistakes are beneficial - allowing us to advance - but sometimes (and here I would bring up the same point that I know you hate - spending TRILLIONS of dollars on something like global warming (or “climate change”)that has the capacity to finanacially cripple us.
“I have never met a creation rationalizationist who had a real understanding...”
Please...are you a scientist or a mind reader?
“With each iteration, we get closer to the truth.”
Hopefully, we will not all be mired deep in a world-wide depression or have taught several generations of children erroneously before we arrive at “the truth”....
“Compare that to creation rationalization which proudly and loudly proclaims its mistake to the world with absolutely no mechanism for self-correction.”
And little destruction, except to the wounded egos of the intelligentsia who can NOT BELIEVE they could be wrong...just not right THIS TIME.
And the self-correction for throwing me and my progeny and the US and possibly the world into a deep multi-trillion dollar hole is???
Sorry, Skippy, you lose this one. And you know it.
“Well, then you are a true scientist. Mistakes are a negative - they are a result of misintrpretation (intentional or not) that leads to a false conclusion.”
You misunderstood my point—perhaps that was my fault. Your post impugned science on the basis of the fact that mistakes are possible at all, i.e., that errors, misinterpretations CAN happen. That it is not as perfect as creation rationalization in which contrary evidence is banned. Don’t worry—despite that, science remains quite accurate in its predictions and conclusions, the global warming red harring notwithstanding.
Sorry—I don’t get your multi-trillion dollar hole rant. Why do creation rationalizationists always try to mix politics into the debate?
So, as you can see, I don’t lose. In fact, I win.
“Oh and for the record, I do not believe in “Cold Fusion” or “Man made Climate change”, but I like how you try to lump what I’m saying in with that junk science.”
Whew, sorry it took so long to respond, but I just now stopped laughing. That was pretty funny. They were lumped in to demonstrate how destructive a worldwide pursuit or belief in flawed scaince could in fact be catastrophic - you seem to be diligently ignoring this point - the real point - of my criticism of science and the folly of the leaps sometimes taken...that is all.