Just out of curiosity, Marcus, and I want to see if you're willing to admit this:
Of course. Modern chemistry has to take the responsibility for a faulty theory disproven over two hundred years ago and never used since, but your ultra-elite fraction of a denomination's subsect is magically detached from all historical connections, ideological predecessors and heresies still very much alive today and in fact much larger than your own organization. Sure, AV, sure.
Who took the credit for Phlogiston theory, again? It was never put to use, commercially or otherwise. It has been dead in the water for over 2 centuries now. A bunch of alchemists and mystics wrote books because they didn't know any better, later, the first chemists showed that they were wrong. The people who were wrong took the blame for it and, presumably, were eventually convinced by the evidence.
Whoever told you that didn't know the first thing about atheism or science. Death isn't necessary for "improvement", adaption is. That organisms failing to adapt usually die and eventually become extinct isn't the fault of science. Science describes what God implemented - according to you Christians (or is that "according to you independent fundamental baptists"?), God was the one who brought death into this world. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Him, but stop blaming science for creating death by taking pictures of it.
He definitely was, and if he had listened to scientists actually worth their salt instead of pangermanic new-agers and quacks in the vein of Mengele et al. , he would have been told that it would never work - another thing he had in common with Stalin.
Of course it does --- that's because God doesn't work on the same principle as "modern" chemistry works on, viz. trial and error --- God got it right the first time.
Now being the operative word here. To use MrGoodBytes' term, "modern" Thalidomide is safer.
Maybe this had more to do with marketing and the desire for profit than with some flaw in science?
This stuff didn't happen in Genesis 1, where God got it right. Like I said, I can build you the perfect car, but if you take it out and wreck it, it's not my fault.LOL! Got it right the first time?? That's rich, AVET. Let's look at how God got it right:
1. His perfect Angelic creation, Lucifer turns against him. God in his forsight does nothing to not only prevent this, but allows Lucifer to take a third of all God's perfect angelic creations with him down the path of rebellion.
2. His perfect non-angelic creation , Adam, disobeys him and throws all of creation into chaos, allowing Lucifer to rule over the earth. Again, God does nothing to prevent this.
3. God sits around and twiddles his thumbs while Lucifer continues to run His creation as if Lucifer himself had created it. After a few thousand years, He send His son donwn to keep at least some of his children from failing through Sin into Hellfire. He then waits again before fixing the mess of His Creation that He should have prevented in the first palce.
Well Done, indeed
Well --- that's my question --- how did the formula get from R&D to Marketing?
Of course they did, because there wasn't any law forcing them to conduct further tests. Careless? Maybe. As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.
QV Post 32.
What on earth makes you think the scientist had any say in the matter as opposed to say, some product development manager?
No, it doesn't. If I build the perfect car, and the perfect driver, and the perfect driver wrecks the car by going down a road he was clearly told not to go down, it's not the fault of the manufacturer.
If somebody wrecks a car, he is clearly not the perfect driver.
Well, if I, for instance, built a perfect car with a perfect driver, and told the driver NEVER to get on Interstate 5, and he got on Interstate 5, then he just lost his perfection.
