Jump to content

The dog that ate the dinosaurs


Recommended Posts

Which pretty well sums up the attitudes and actions of most geologists and pretty well all geophysicists when they rejected Wegener's theory of Continental Drift. Blind obstinacy is not limited to creationists, nor outwith the behaviour of scientists.

 

But there is always the difference between the theory of science and science as it's practised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which pretty well sums up the attitudes and actions of most geologists and pretty well all geophysicists when they rejected Wegener's theory of Continental Drift. Blind obstinacy is not limited to creationists, nor outwith the behaviour of scientists.

 

Mental illness is not exclusive to creationists, but they are a major group of sufferers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I'm not antireligion, although not religious myself, not trying to offend anyone)

But there is always the difference between the theory of science and science as it's practised.

 

The same can be said about religion: some (not all, no flaming, please) people think acting pious once a week at church services is enough, and then they lie, cheat, etc etc once they're out of sight of the steeple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I'm not antireligion' date=' although not religious myself, not trying to offend anyone)

 

 

The same can be said about religion: some (not all, no flaming, please) people think acting pious once a week at church services is enough, and then they lie, cheat, etc etc once they're out of sight of the steeple.[/quote']

 

I am NOT anti-religion, I am anti literal word bible interpreting [aka bible bashers]. :) I have repeatedly stated that I believe in higher powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am NOT anti-religion, I am anti literal word bible interpreting [aka bible bashers']. :) I have repeatedly stated that I believe in higher powers.

 

I wasn't trying to imply that you were, sorry if it came off that way. I agree with you about literal interpretations, how can you take something literally after the text has been through so many centuries of transcribing by hand and translation to translation to translation? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.