How many times will someone on FR equate formulation of new theories based on more recent evidence as being “completely wrong”?
It's a reaction to the "We now know" phenomenon. By that I mean the media's habit of saying "It was once believed that [X]. However, we now know [Y]." The truth is, everything we once believed was at that time something that, at the time, we now 'knew.' In other words, that thing we now 'know' isn't something we really know... it's just an updated best guess.
If you have a “new theory” that is consistently contradicted by new and existing evidence, it’s not much of a theory.
I’d qualify it as a fantasy.
It's a reaction to the "We now know" phenomenon. By that I mean the media's habit of saying "It was once believed that [X]. However, we now know [Y]." The truth is, everything we once believed was at that time something that, at the time, we now 'knew.' In other words, that thing we now 'know' isn't something we really know... it's just an updated best guess.
When scientists stop finding evidence that proves their grand theory is a fraud. This eliminates the dinosaur to bird evolution supposedly proved by the feathered dinosaur. That fraud has been supposed proof for decades, never mind.
Evolution is the most destructive religion in the history of man.
Pray for America
On the average, about once per thread.
Odd that the same rule doesn't apply to reinterpretations of religious texts....