Proof Science Isn’t the Answer for Everything

For all those who claim science as more trustworthy and unerring than religion, explain the crap shoot that is Meteorology.


8 thoughts on “Proof Science Isn’t the Answer for Everything

  1. Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers like religion – it’s a method of discovery. When you next switch the light on, watch TV, eat with plastic utensils or start your car – ask how much science was required to achieve those ‘miracles’… quite a lot! Or when you can watch dead people on a magic box in your living room – vintage movies on TV. Religion could only dream of bringing the dead to life – science has made it happen!


    • Thank you for taking the time to comment. Christianity has made pelenty of ignorant mistakes and unfortunately the crazies like faith healing parents and snake handling preachers keep the more intellectual, open minded, and reasonable people from making any progress. But those on the opposite side can’t become equally pious in the unerring scientific process. Both systems (religion and science) are capable of making mistakes. The difference is that science (with the exception of the unethical who skew their results in their favor) is designed to discover mistakes, learn from them, and grow. Not just ignore them for their own benefit.


  2. You mean the crap shoot that is televised meteorology.

    They use computer models to predict what weather systems will do. The farther into the future they’re looking, the harder it is to do, because there are a lot of variables.

    I’d rather go with the meteorologists than the book that says we should stone people to death for working on Sundays.


    • Thank you for your comments. Yes, the crap shoot of meteorology; and technically it’s stoning people for working on Sabbath which is Saturday but I get your point. The issue that the minority of Christians like myself have is that we see religion as a growing process, capable of discovery and making errors. The ignorance of traditional Christianity along with it’s biased history are deservingly suspect.


  3. Straw man (Meteorology does not = “Millions of years ago” argument or evolution). To even comprehend evolution, you have to understand how to be scientific (which is quite a trick apparently for most people..just ask someone what their understanding of the word “theory” is and that will reveal their understanding (or lack thereof). But to even begin to understand any validity of the theory of evolution you have to know a good deal about cellular biology, genetics, anatomy, geology (particularly paleontology), environmental systems, tectonics, atomic chemistry, especially taxonomy – which most people don’t know anything about to any good degree.

    Most people that accept the theory also tend to have an interest or understanding of cosmology, geography, history, sociology, politics, and religion.

    But to believe in the main alternative, creationism, you don’t have to know anything…about anything. This relies heavily on ignorance. Its a con job. It exploits the common folk, preys on the common fears (and offers a reward system for obedience). The apologists misrepresent data, misquote authorities (out of date/out of context) and uses distorted definitions (Evolution equalling “random chance” [they use this against the big bang theory that something came from nothing, which isn’t an assertion made in the BBT]).

    This is in response to the comic itself and not anyone’s comments afterwards.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s