{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/10/2015 10:54:51 AM
1
Scientific community uses a process of peer review.
They don't test theories that have already been rigorously put to the test and proven correct.(I.e, Newton's Laws)
There are plenty of scientists that believe in faith and god. I never said there weren't.
There are extremely few scientists that don't believe in evolution. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find many at all. Hence my 99% claim.
English
-
I leant more towards their faith in documented scientific facts. Not so much a religious belief system. The proof in faith being present, are the scientists who question others conclusions. I would like to think the countless hours spent attempting perpetual motion machines were to further the laws of thermodynamics validity... But at the end of the day, even the most well founded theories have a " burden of proof "... Through time this changes into " fact "... And the burden of proof, becomes any who question. It's an age old tactic... While I don't want to hinder scientific progress by labelling every conclusion as " inconclusive "... I'm not going to overlook this basic strategy, used in military, politics and religion. I also don't like bringing up topical content as an example, but E=MC squared is wrong. If the Scientists at CERN had faith ( hail shiva? ) in every scientist that ever came to a conclusion... Well, I might be a little less concerned about September 2015... But also there wouldn't be any progress.
