And yes, I do call that science....you study and gather as much info as you can and try to draw conclusions from that. As new information or technology comes on the scene, you go back and look at the previous work to see if it can't be improved. If it can, you do so, and publish the new information. That's how its supposed to work. It's not perfect, but it's the only approach that makes sense.
Is this how the search for making life works? I mean scientists have been failing for fifty, sixty, or maybe by now seventy years. We are talking about intelligent people. In fact very educated people, at that. Not blind random chance, and they have only proven life comes from life.
That may ultimately prove to be true, and I'd have zero issues with that. However, knowledge is not gained by saying "this seems to be true, let's stop looking at it altogether and just assume its right"...they obviously didn't stop looking at the age of the universe just because previous scientists thought they had the numbers right, and that's the way science should work.
Yes, it would seem that when the data provided by science changes it is correct to change theory and then the appropriate conclusions along with it.
I did get a wry grin when there was reference in the article about how the older date was “settled science.”
In our day and age, we know so little that there is no such thing as “settled science.” Only the ignorant among us would think that.
Last edited by TF49; 09/12/19.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
