The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: I dunno. The process is
I dunno. The process is
I dunno. The process is entirely different. If an experiment is not repeatable or data doesn't support a hypothesis, the idea must be scrapped or modified. Further, a good theory in science must be able to make accurate predictions. Religion does not work this way. Information is taken up only which supports the dogma. Information to the contrary will be ignored or demonized. Their hypotheses are perpetually immovable, until the dogma becomes socially untenable and embarrassing, then the leaders will all of the sudden have a epiphany, spoken to them by god.
So, the process works exactly the opposite in science and religion. Further, science usually seeks to prove things through testing. Religion deals with something it's participants are all to happy to have unprovable. Religion seeks little new information except that which was laid out 2000 years ago. In the mean time, it interferes with inquiry when it feels threatened,
Replies to this comment: