: Secular science is that way also. "Verified" science of the past has been overturned by more "verified" science, and on, and on, etc.This is the good thing about science. You can show that the axiom X is untrue, thereby making the axiom not-X true; thereby coming closer to an accurate model.
It's like playing 'higher or lower'; if the experimental data rules out 'higher', you can say 'lower' in the next experiment. Eventually you get to the point of being able to make accurate predictions of physical phenomena; which enables you to do things like use aircraft, cars, plastics, medicine and the like.
: As for verifiable "science", Heisenberg, for an example, had his Uncertainty Theory upgraded to level of "Principle" with no proof other than the observer's predetermined outcome.
'Upgraded'?
Robert, I'm a qualified physicist and there is no difference in 'proved' status between a theory and a principle. A 'principle' is merely a theoretical mechanism within the theory as a whole.
: The Bible remains today without a provable contradiction.
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.
The Bible remains without a provable anything, Robert; you've said so yourself.
If the Bible is infallible, it constitutes proof of God.
If there is demonstrable proof of God, then God is not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
Therefore, either the Bible is not infallible or God is not absolute.
You still refuse to see this Robert; because it blows your position away. You cannot even dismiss it. You are simply ignoring it, because it makes you uncomfortable.
And you will no doubt follow up to this with some vacuous statement that has absolutely no relationship to the previous paragraph.
: Incidently, it is impossible to be an true aetheist.
I never said I was an atheist. I cannot prove the absence of God any more than you can prove the existence of God. There may or may not be a God. It doesn't trouble me either way.
You are quite welcome to believe what you want, Robert - do you believe that the Sun goes around the Earth; or are you prepared to admit that the Church got that one wrong and that science was right?
But please don't try and use your ultimately unsubstantiated beliefs to try and interfere in the demonstrable and proveable world of physical phenomena. You don't have the education to know Legendre polynomials from Laplace transforms; and your continued efforts to use random bits of science to try and bolster your faith are frankly half-cocked.
And don't say that I sound distressed or annoyed; I'm neither, right now; I do not need your condescending forgiveness or superior platitudes (neither of which you are in a position to give).
If the Bible said it was dark 24 hours a day, would you go against your senses because the Bible said so?
Consider the words of good old Protestant Martin Luther; another famous anti-scientist speaking out against Copernicus' heliocentric theory (which is still a theory, by the way);
``that fool [who would] reverse the entire art of astronomy. . . Joshua bade the Sun and not the Earth to stand still.''
Are you so dogmatic in your beliefs, Robert, that you would say that red is green if the Bible told it was the case?
Would you do to Darwin as the Church did to Bruno; burn him at the stake because he threatened your views of the cosmos?
Gideon.
