That wasn't my point. My point was that by itself, religion doesn't change but science does. When you begin to consider other factors, then yes religion does change but that wasn't my stance.
Of course it wasn't your point Malleus, that would have blown your whole perceptional viewpoint.
You know, you keep saying this not only to me but to so many other people on here also. While we all have our perceptions, the way you keep saying it almost suggests you're free of it. We all have our perceptions, you included so if I am to somehow remove these, then the same goes for you, it's a two-sided argument.
Malleus, that you even conceive that I do not carry human perceptions is a perception in itself. You relate and associate to it like that because you carry this perception that you think I oppose you.
I'm aware of your interpretation of the unknown knowledge because if you remember, you and I had a brief debate about it.
Then why would you raise the same point again, the unknown, the supernatural, is nothing more than things we do not have knowledge on yet.
I'm not saying missing links don't exist, I said they do exist, hence you and I are in agreement yet for some unusual reason, now both of us are debating about it so let's stop that.
Missing links pertain in both science and religious theories and opinions. To condemn one is to condemn the other.
It depends on what one considers evidence as.
I would suggest empirical evidence, albeit each to their own view where human intelligence is concerned.
Unfortunately, this is true. Majority does rule even when majority is wrong and in this respect, science can sometimes be dogmatic.
I can only agree, science can be dogmatic at times, it is the human nature in it. Generally it is only lay people who cannot see, or do not see the dogma in science and believe it only exists in the religious.
I explained it for the very reason that when you claim to be educated in science but then use a fundamental premise of science in order to refute science by pointing out a flaw that science already accepts, then that suggests one may not entirely understand it. That is why I mentioned the statistical analysis, I didn't mention it to teach you about statistical analysis because I know that there are a bunch of posters here who can run circles around me about this and so I'd be an arrogant fool to suppose I could do what they can.
My education in science comes from a different field, albeit one that connects all scientific fields together and shows the flaws in observation and the acceptance of power of suggestions as fact.
Science accepts its limitations, as do credible scientists within the field of science.
If you accept that you are an unreasoned thinker and are ahead in the game, then why do you continue to use debate tactics such as the one you provided in your response to me regarding my perception and biases? Such debate tactics take you one step backwards.
Only when a person knows they know nothing, can they begin to learn. That you see it as a debate tactic, is your perception of the events.
Human perception is one of, if not the most, powerful elements on earth. No person is immune to it, not me, not you, not anybody. It doesn't just go away because we adopt and use scientific method. Scientific method is unbiased and without prejudice, albeit it is put straight back in via the theories, evaluations, power of suggestions and even conclusions humans derive from it.
However unfortunate it is at this point in time, even my own chosen field of science doesn't have a direct answer to the perception problem, albeit many perceptions abound as we continually attack a symptom and not a root cause. This is futher compounded by the fact that religions do have an answer to fix the perception problem, which science is just starting to evaluate now.
