Science Changes but the Bible is Constant - How Science Works

[DblOSmith]

Excellent analogy.

[dgreyz]

Science never changes. Scientific conclusions are conditional and technically can not contradict because of that.

Believers don't mean to fight science, they attack what they think is science, but is actually the media that is dumbing down science to dogmatic conclusions. Science wouldn't be saying earth is 1000 years old. But dumbed down science will and dumbed down science does indeed change.

[TheEXpothead]

science changes because it's incomplete and can never lead anyone to the truth, because of that reason. religion can't explain truth either. truthism is way greater than any of these tools of control.

don't ask me, re-search it if you dare.

[jerico641]

I very much agree with this guy, and I'm going to subscribe to him; but I gotta say it: he has look like David Naughton about 1/3 of the way through changing into a werewolf. Not that that's a bad thing...

[hldemi]

Nah , thats not frog . Thats photoshop dude .

[IThink2SecsAhead]

3 dumbasses didnt pass there science exam

[cshcharly]

This guy sucks

[chattiestspike2]

@cshcharly Troll much?

[QuestionRenee]

@cshcharly : *This guy rocks

I corrected your post, no welcome needed!

[Versuz4Vendetta]

1.The " Frog " analogy is inadaquate of TRUTH. Following that process, Truth would be based from your limits, you'd be carrying the perception of " This is truth, because it's what we have today ".

2.Even your final frog conception could be dissected even further.

3.Truth has no process, TRUTH IS. Therefore,Both pictures of the frog are identical, YOU'VE JUST REDEFINED IT.

It's like a man calling another in a wheelchair " disabled ", and someone else calling him by his name " Karl ".

[chattiestspike2]

@Versuz4Vendetta I think you missed the point. I never said anything like "this is truth because it's what we have today." I do agree with points 2, and 3. Both pictures were, in a sense, identical. Just like how scientific discoveries work, though I wouldn't call it redefining, but I would call it refining.

[Versuz4Vendetta]

@chattiestspike2 Would you agree Refining involves " choice " of action, by way of theory of intention, from a presupposed truth, and Redefining involves " choice " of action, by way of theory of intention, from a presupposed truth as well ?

[rossini55]

@Versuz4Vendetta You are making a perfectly simple and coherent explanation WAY more compicated that it needs to be. Chatty's frog picure analogy, is pretty darn good as far as explaining he values of the scientific method.

[MrDessy]

Do I even have to watch this? Science isn't a point of view. It's a process that establishes point of views. The people who founded religions may have been scientists themselves--sound weird, right? However, since religions and supernatural storytelling generally came into being as surrogate explanations and things where man's current knowledge was lacking, it is not entirely strange to think that their theories (Our Religions) are best compared to those theories of more modern scientists...

[MrDessy]

@MrDessy ...Those theories of more modern scientists that are similarly outdated or disproven. For example. The existence of God is backed be absolutely zero empirical evidence. The smallest probability of any other theory being true regarding the creation of the universe is therefore MORE VALID, because the given probability of God existing, based on real-life factors, is Zero Percent. Ta~

[sofusmadsen]

cool analogy

[TalkingWigHead]

Ablurrygrayscaleblob becaue that's just the way god made it. ♥

[TalkingWigHead]

@TalkingWigHead *because ):<

[ThisMemory]

That's a bad analogy. A better one would be pieces of a puzzle. The Bible has all the pieces where their supposed to be. Science has most of the pieces but they're always rearranging them and creating new pieces to get that perfect picture. The problem is they're missing a few important pieces so it will never be perfect.

[PaulTheHeritic]

Nice analogy, well done!

[DeeDemonwitch]

@PaulTheHeritic agreed

[arbide3]

Funny ending

[billyrubinbrown]

science is self-correcting

[chattiestspike2]

@billyrubinbrown while religion is self-refuting

[billyrubinbrown]

@chattiestspike2 yes, right

[TheAwesomeMaths]

@chattiestspike2 Really? How so?

[ebullock43]

good analogy.

[ezmereldagreen]

You are so cool

[ezmereldagreen]

You are so cool

[ezmereldagreen]

You are so cool

[ezmereldagreen]

You are so coooooool

[ezmereldagreen]

you are so cool.

[MsRobotRock]

love your picture analogy =3

[GallusSapien]

Lets see. Over time there have been major reforms in christianity, we currently have dozens of dozens of "translations" of the bible, just in english, books have been added to, subtracted from the bible, there are even books which the bible references that are no longer available anywhere. Not to mention the ever evolving and diverging sects based on the same book which is now in the tens of thousands and of those they cant even agree to what its saying with in those sects. Yeah. Bible>science

[noistate]

Well said.

[daemonowner]

The frog is smiling!

[thearbiter221]

suck on that creationists ouch

[MageGrayWolf]

Good analogy with the frog picture.

[Idoloish]

Chattiestspike2, did you just get back from filming First Blood?

[chattiestspike2]

@Idoloish yeah

[Idoloish]

@chattiestspike2

You should really sport a bandana. You'd make a convincing young Rambo.

[BlameRepublicans]

This kid looks like his face should be on ancient Roman coins.

[chattiestspike2]

@BlameRepublicans my face IS on ancient Roman coins.

[BlameRepublicans]

@chattiestspike2 LOL seriously - are you of Italian heritage?

[chattiestspike2]

@BlameRepublicans Yes that's part of it lol

[BlameRepublicans]

@chattiestspike2 HA! IKnew it. Me too, but I got Irish blood on mom's side, so not only do I like wine, I like it too much.

[ttopperr]

@chattiestspike2 You have a very roman nose but, you knew that already.

[kataang321]

Well said!

[blackwolf1200]

Since creationists and other believers consistently lie about science, their misunderstandings and reproaches have no merit either. Just the other day in some comment section, a creationist claimed that he had learned in college science, that Earth was only a few dozen million years old. The last time that age of Earth was actually taught in any college was about a century ago. They lie. And then they lie some more.

[centoguzzi]

There was a time In Europe when the Bible /religion was considered to be the authority on how the World worked and science was brutally oppressed. That time is now known as The Dark Ages. Of course you probably already knew that.

[L00NGB00W]

Constancy is stagnation. The pursuit of truth lies in the journey, Not the destination. For the destination lies an infinity away. Once a question meets an answer, new questions are born.

There's a reason why "It is said, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"

It's because He fails tests. Constantly.

[RichardRoy2]

Nice analogy.

[PainefulMass]

Another (possibly stronger) way to refute this strange claim that creationists make is to say that even if science continually refines its positive claims about the universe, science never takes back things that it claims are false. For instance, we know the Earth is not 6,000 years old. No matter how refined our number gets the claim that it is 6,000 years old will never be true.

[ThisMemory]

@PainefulMass Science over the years told us coffee was good and bad for you. Constantly changing back and forth. So there goes your statement.

[PainefulMass]

@ThisMemory Awesome. You responded to my exact wording of "science". Clearly I meant "scientific theory". There has never been any theory saying why coffee is good or bad. I'd also claim that nutrition science is far closer to pseudoscience than science (I can make the case for that, so don't claim "no true Scotsman" on me).

[ThisMemory]

@PainefulMass Apparently it wasnt clear. Nevertheless, heres another exmple: Spontaneous Generation. Proven wrong by Louis Pasteur. Then later the "Primordial Soup" theory arose saying spontaneous generation did happen once... Miller’s experiments were thought to confirm this theory. Then similar tests were carried out proving that the theory could only work with an outside Intelligent Designer, with a specific purpose in mind. McAlester confirmed this. Now theres numerous theories

[PainefulMass]

@ThisMemory You don't know what you're talking about. No scientific theory has ever required an outside ID with a specific purpose in mind.

[ThisMemory]

@PainefulMass I meant Miller's experiment. Replace "theory" with experiment.

Then similar tests were carried out proving that the "Experiments" could only work with an outside Intelligent Designer, with a specific purpose in mind.

[ciaochowbella]

The most mind-boggling example of Christian hypocrisy is shown with their vocal condemnation of science when it contradicts their religion, yet let one of them get sick and they are the first ones taking that flu shot, popping those antibiotics and doing what the doctor ordered all the while claiming that science is a load of bunk.

I wonder how long ANY of them would remain Christian if they had to choose between archaic beliefs and moden medicine and technology.

[mrx00666]

Now that's a great example.

Nicely done.

[derek24hudson]

Imagine being found guilty of a crime you did not commit and, when new and definitive evidence is found exonerating you, being told 'Sorry, our verdicts are solid and unchanging. Once guilty, always guilty '.

[Bendersound]

I am sorry. I don't believe you.

[ExtremeMadnessX]

It is sad that many people still will not understand how science works, and will continue to speak of anti science nonsense such as - "before they believed in the ether, now say that ether does not exist, so in the future people will say, that before people were stupid because they believe in electrons, and, I mean really, the evidence and experiments, nonsense, it all is just a belief "- these people are total ignoramuses!

[jancar2012]

erThe problem with the bible IS it's constancy. It takes just 3 seconds to realize, hey, we all know the earth is round but the bible still says it's flat. To this day it says the earth is flat. And yet we know not only that it's round but that it was round even as the bible was being written. It's always been round, we've just gotten a clearer picture of it. Xians seem to think that learning new things is evil, but we're discovering what's always been there; the truth that we just couldn't see.

[hoovalicious1]

@jancar2012 You non believers amaze me. Everyone knows the Bible is not supposed to be taken literally. Here you go being so "word for word". "judge not lest ye be judged". Come on, Judge away! God didnt really mean it. Can you say sarcasm? You dont really even have to believe most of it. Except the red words. Believe those or you'll burn in hell, and you will be Satans B*tch. (I made up the last part)

[Juxtaroberto]

@hoovalicious1 Most Christians believe in a literal translation. If you are not one of those then this isn't for you. I also don't see how "bats are birds" can be taken non-literally.

[Atriviality]

@Juxtaroberto

Most Christians don't believe in a literal translation, however only the minority that DO believe in a literal translation care enough to be vocal about it.

Just look at those street preachers. Look at how many people just blow them off without giving a damn what they're saying, even if they're both Christians. Could you imagine what kind of nightmare the world would be if most Christians were like those people?

[jancar2012]

@hoovalicious1 The red words are the worst part because they are written in virgin blood. Being written in virgin blood does not make something true, just unsanitary. More sanitary than a whore's blood, perhaps, but at the very least nauseating. Did I mention it's period blood? And by the way, I judge plenty enough to stay out of hell. I judge so much satan's gonna be MY b*tch, washing my boxers and cleaning my toilet and sh*t.

[blankfreak1991]

@jancar2012 satan's not real, your crazy if you believe it is...

[OpenAirAtheist]

Great vid as usual : )

[pilgrimpater]

What's the betting a creotard comes here and claims it's a talking frog.

[mmawilldesha]

Yes unlike the Bible science progresses and improves. Once science said that Earth was thousands of years old and then millions and now billions. The Bible 2,000 years ago said the Earth was flat and now it says...that the Earth is flat.

[craigore2011]

also science can peer review anything that makes declarative statements about the nature of the universe which presents expectations about this thing called reality. this includes many holy texts such as the bible. regardless of author, claims can be examined by peers of a field in question. to pass peer review is to stand as coherent in its applied definitions of reality under examination and be credible as science. the bible has failed to do this, and so mch of it is not establishd knowledge

[craigore2011]

@craigore2011 meaning the bible is rife with shit thatwe can't reasonably expect to work in reality without more data than has been submitted within this moldy tome of fables and allegory. you can say its supernatural, but that does nothing to redeem it.

[johncrwarner]

I would argue that the creationist's theology about the bible and the world has changed over time too. Creationism is not something that dropped fully formed from the heavens on the first day. Biblical inerrantism depends on the Lutheran swap from authority of the church to authority of the scriptures and taking that to extremes and also the development of evangelical theology and its conservative wing in the 19th century. Creationists tend to come from a narrow range of sects in christianity.

[Shift4chizzle]

ooo christmas tree in the background. but yeah i agree with what you said 

[gaglamesh731]

You should have used that diagram with faith being just :

"Discover idea -> Believe it forever -> Ignore anything countering it -> End"

[rkyeun]

@gaglamesh731

That would imply an initial discovery.

Get asked a question you don't know the answer to. -> Make up a lie. -> Believe your own lie. -> Deny anything disproving your lie for as long as you can. -> Kill anyone telling a different lie until the information age. -> Start using apologetics to claim the lie was metaphorical or taken out of context. -> Use politics to force your lie through the education system to undermine science. -> Your country returns to the dark ages.

[claudiaquat]

The problem with the unchanging bible is finding two people who agree as to what it says. There are about 15 buttzillion religions in the world and they have no way to settle any dispute short of war. No matter where you go there is just one science. When it's wrong it corrects itself; when it's broken it fixes itself and when it's right it gets lots of grant money and throws the sort of parties I don't get invited to. Stupid science. :-(

[ABitOfTheUniverse]

@claudiaquat That twist at the end had me laughing for 15 seconds then I reread the comment and laughed for nearly a full minute. Thank you very much claudiaquat, you even cleared my sinuses, but now my throat and belly hurt a little. I'm happier though, overall, so it's all worth it. I imagine many other aspiring scientists or even aging scientists who have not had much recognition throughout their careers will blow liquid out of their mouths and nostrils onto their keyboards reading your post.

[Craigmw45]

@claudiaquat Love your comment. And I find when trying to argue with "literal" Christians, that they always, without exception, tell me that I'm "reading the bible wrong" when I'm taking a word for word translation.

Yes I'm the bad guy, for implying that what the bible says, is supposed to be what it means.

[claudiaquat]

@Craigmw45 Pinning down a xian is like trying to catch a bird by chopping down the tree they're sitting in. Defeat the tree and they just flit over to the next tree and declare it to be their real position. That game can go on for a long time.

[shananagans5]

@claudiaquat lol Great comment. How many zeros in a buttzillion?

[claudiaquat]

@shananagans5 How tight is your butt? BWAHAAAHAAAhaaha. #snort#

[tctheunbeliever]

Or they'll just make shit up.

[truckcompany]

This reminds me about what William Lane Craig said about morals. In a debate, someone asked him, "If objective morals exist, how do we know what they are?" He first thanked the questioner for asking him this question. (what a dick). He said that objective morals can and should be debated amongst people to understand what the best (but not always right) answer to what these objective morals are.

It's sort of same argument used. Assuming there is an objective answer to questions about science.

[jmm1233]

SCIENCE EVOLVES :3

[saiyanmage]

The bible may be constant but the people's interpretation of the bible isn't. You've seen how they all cherrypick the nice bits in it now.

[chthonios]

Rarg! Another one of my arguments, do you have a cam in my brain? lol :-)

Well, my take on this (in video I think).

Science is not in its answers, but in how it gets to those answers (test, examine, quantify then start again), science has no loyalty to the answers whatsoever.

Religion is entirely in its answers, it doesnt care how it gets the answers (read it, dream it, have a vision or just make it up), its loyalty is to those answers completely.

[MacNutz2]

good stuff mon.

[LithodidMan]

The funny thing I see in the claim that the Bible never changes is how the views of the most conservative fundamentalist Christian in America today would be considered a heresy by conservative fundamentalist Christians a few centuries ago. But then again, we all know that those Christians way back then were not true Christians. Gives me a laugh.

[truckcompany]

@LithodidMan

I agree.

With this kind of stupid logic, it makes me want to punch a Christian in the face lol.

[LithodidMan]

@truckcompany To be fair, it really only to self-proclaimed biblical literalists. Most Christians accept that their Bible, and their interpretation of it, is a dynamic thing (assuming that there is some great revealed truth in the Bible we are slowly coming to understand. A questionable position but at least better than the fundie position).

[truckcompany]

@LithodidMan

Interesting...

The Christians I talk to accept that interpretations can change because of the fallacy of humans, but I haven't met anyone that thinks the bible being the word of God changes.

When you ask them why they dont believe, say, if slavery is a good thing anymore. They might claim its a culture thing; just because something is practice in another culture and not ours, doesnt mean its wrong.

Course I think the whole lot is garbage :)

[ChipArgyle]

Good analogy.

Science changes, but the Bible remains eternally and consistently incorrect.

[bobbytookalook]

You don't mean, oh horror of horrors . . . Science evolves?

[GeneralMontague]

It takes a truly stunted mind to think stagnation is better than progress.

It saddens me to think some people actually think like that.

[IllPropaganda]

Always on point, man!

Been digging "The Blog of the Spike", with the regular updates!

[chattiestspike2]

@IllPropaganda Glad you noticed the change :D