Originally posted by mongreloctopus
Clearly, you misunderstood...When I say that "science has been proven wrong", I mean not that the concept of science was proven wrong, but that at any given point in its "evolution" the underlying "beliefs" that make up its existence (yes, they are beliefs, not facts) have been shown by a more recent version of science to be blatant falsehoods
Not true. Some previous scientific theories have been proven incorrect; however, the majority have been found to be specific instances or less precise versions of more encompassing theories formulated later. Newton’s formulation of the gravitational force, for instance, is still used by civil engineers and architects to build the bridges and buildings you use every day. Newton’s equations actually emerge from Einstein’s theory of general relativity for non-relativistic situations. Newton was not wrong. His theory was simply incomplete. The same is true of the evolution of our understanding of electromagnetism and atomic and subatomic structures and interactions. Scientists build on and revise the work of the past. This is the nature of the scientific process, and again, it is its virtue. Please actually study the history of science before you post inaccurate statements.

...The fact that there still does not exist any one "version" of reality that has been discovered by "science" that can still hold up to any "scientific" testing is a pretty good indication that "science" still hasn't given us anything except for a vague way to describe a mind-blowingly small portion of the known universe[/b]
Quantum mechanics is the most well-tested, most accurate, and most successful scientific theory in history. It is not “vague,” but a highly versatile and specific description of physical reality. It is not complete for well-known and freely admitted reasons, most notably the incapability of relativity and quantum mechanics at subatomic scales under relativistic influences and also because of the lack of a tested theory of quantum gravitation. This in no way negates QM’s usefulness nor its valuable insight into the nature of the subatomic world. Were science as wishy-washy as you attempt to portray it, you would never be able to make your posts because the computers on which you compose and post them would not work.
Blind belief in religion is no different than blind belief in the validity of physics, and it's obvious, when you have to keep coming up with different theories to explain why our current physics doesn't to describe that which lies outside the finite range of human experience.[/b]
Wrong on two counts.
One: Science is vastly different from religion, for the very basic reason which I stated in my first post and which you have conveniently ignored. It is the nature of science to evolve. It is the nature of religion to stagnate.
Two: Science does not attempt to describe that which lies outside the finite range of human experience. How can one test what one cannot experience? The limits of human perception are the limits of science – science seeks to describe the perceivable world. And of course, technology has vastly expanded the available range of experience, so “human experience” is by no means limited to the perception of the unaided human senses.

You seem to be claiming that I am saying that no "science" has any meaning or use whatsoever[/b]
You did title your post “physics is a weak argument”. Perhaps you should give more thought and consideration to your chosen subject line if you do not wish such misunderstandings to occur in the future.

But he must also realize that this science, as you say, is a process--a very young process, and has not included in its vast, blanketing reach something so simple as why apples fall to the ground...[/b]
Excuse me? That’s called gravity and it has been studied by the modern scientific process for almost 350 years.

And the "you" in my post was directed towards Korittke, because I thought I might get a good argument from him, so I'll ignore the last bit.[/b]
Well, he didn’t seem too interested, but you have piqued the interest of a “real scientist” who finds your critique of science weak at best. If you intend your post simply for one person, perhaps you should consider a private message, or, if you enjoy the public attention of a forum discussion, you should mention your target debater by name so as to avoid confusion.