How is one orgins story considered better than another

[Drich]

I'm constantly re-evaluating the situation in response to new data, that's why I believe as I do. It's also why I know that there's no faith in science; the fact that I was willing to learn, and relearn if the situation requires, the mechanisms underpinning certain scientific conclusions is what keeps me informed enough to not simply take scientists at their word.

Seriously I'm confused. You said you weren't going to re-evaluate what you believed, and now you say you do all the time?

Am I to assume that you were not willing to take a fresh look at the info being discussed, that your re-evaluation process it alot like a confirmation bias? That you are willing to only consider infor that supports what you already believe?

Just asking.

Hate to break it to you sport I work as a system designer/engineer who uses physics and chemistry day in day out. I can see and identify practical sciences from the fringe science that comes up with unverifiable crap that is taught along side real practical science.

Then you have no excuse for discarding the scientific evidence that leads to the conclusions you think of as fringe science. It's just you dishonestly attempting to preserve your real faith.

I haven't discarded any evidence. I simply Identify the faith needed to accept a given interpretation when said theory can not be proven.

I didn't say it was a bad thing I am just calling a spade a spade.

All of science is our best current guess, as it's a probabilistic field. That doesn't alter the fact that it is what the evidence shows, and not simply a faith based argument from authority.

Like it or not, Belief in guess work no matter how thorough, still takes a measure of faith. I am just point to that faith as being the same type of faith needed to believe in anything else that is unproven.

Compare and contrast that with the theistic origins concept, which has no evidence, no method of attaining a probability, and is a faith based position.

Again evidence become trivial when said evidence can not be directly linked via expermintation or tangible observation.

Again if anything you said in the above paragraph is true then the end result/end theory would have to change to fit the facts as they change. What makes this a daisy chain of logic is the 200 or so years of changing facts that all lead to the orginal conclusion.

What this means is that details around the edges of the theory have changed, but nothing has come up to challenge the core idea. The picture is enriched by those changes, but nothing has happened to drastically change what the picture depicts.

Think about that for a minute. The core of this theory was first thought up in the 1200's. At that time one can not argue it was a sheer matter of faith to accept. Now from that time to this and everything we have learned the core hypothesis has not changed.

It's like the whole stegasaurus arguement we had a while back. The first one was compiled out of 60 some odd different dig sites 150/200 years ago. and not one has been found complete. The closest we have come is to construct one out of 40 different dig sites from around the world, and yet this 200 year old compilation of bones it still the scientific standard.

What is the liklyhood that the guy who first put all these different bones together from around the world got it all 100% correct right out of the gate?

Then why is it we teach out children that the model of a stegasaurus is not only accurate but have been indoctrinated to not question it?

Flat earth theory any one?

Now again apply this to a theory that is well over a 1000 years old, and ask yourself did the orginal guy just get lucky? A time travler maybe?? Or with the naked eye did he observe all that was needed to compile the core principle of the big bang... And yet 'supprisingly' the theory did not need to be changed in 1000+ years. It was simply added on to.

Seriously? do you not see any faith being expended in this line of thought?

Those new details don't arise in a vacuum Drich, they are discovered one by one in a context of all the established things we knew before. They need to fit into a pre-existing set of facts, not completely destroy all that came before it to build up a new set from scratch. If I'm a scientist and facts A, B, and C are established as true, and then we discover fact D, D needs to be incorporated into a worldview where A, B and C exist, because they still do.

That is how all comfirmation bias works.

What you see as a daisy chain is in reality a gradual refinement and evolution of a scientific theory to better encompass what we discover to be true in future. Versatility is not a sign of dishonesty and faith, it's a sign of an effective theory. And if you're just upset that none of those refinements have led to goddidit, I'd remind you that none of those refinements have been in response to new data that in any way leads one to a theistic conclusion.

What I see is 1200 year old guess being supported by everyone who fancys himself as an 'educated' odgy: person.
and doing so by the same method I believe in God. and yet somehow thier faith is commended while my faith is looed down upon..

Brother again this is not real science this is 200 years of confirmation bias that you sheople/goat-ple want hold in the same regaurd as science.

Then I'm sure you have evidence that says otherwise. Oh wait, you don't. You just want to throw shit at everyone else.

This is you the atheist equilivant of "If God does not exist, then dis prove He exists."

shifting the goal posts

No, I just think it's an elegant depiction of what I'm talking about. Nice strawman, though.

Not a strawman as I was speaking topically. I was going for red herring.

And yet you offer no evidence. Why is it you think that your random assertions carry any weight at all? You've started a thread accusing us all of things, and to cover for that assertion you cannot simply use more assertions to dismiss science that you don't want to be true. The big bang has observable evidence leading to that conclusion. Evolution has likewise. God has nothing.

Without establishing the basis for your accusations they are effectively worthless.

It's real simply if one can not demonstrate their 'scientific theory' through the scientific method more over if a theory is based in the intangiable then it is often shuttled to the fringes of science. The big bang while many consider it a staple of scientific discovery does indeed fit the defination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science

Universal expansion, the cosmic redshift and background radiation, etc etc. Observations made about the universe which lead us to conclude one thing, and not another. There is data to back up all of this, easily accessible. So why is it that when Galileo provides mathematical proof for his theory then it's not faith to accept it, but when scientists today provide the same kind of data for a theory you don't like, it's suddenly faith? The type of evidence hasn't changed, if anything it's gotten better. The only difference here is your personal opinion about the implications of the theory in question.

The problem with all of the theories you mention are based from a relitive single point of time and space. In truth we have only one data point and yet claim mastery over all of time and space. this is loonacy. In what other scientific endeavour can we claim mastery if we have only one data point?

In truth none because at it's core science is about complete observation, and recreation. We can not claim any of this in either story of orgins.

This is how science works, but again in scientific theory this validation is not possible. rather what get's validated is a person who makes a theory, education. (This/My education will come up sooner rather than later in an effort to invalidate what I have observed, just watch.)

What are you talking about? Scientists routinely present evidence and methodology for every theory ever produced.

Again the theory can not be validated because it speaks to the intangible. How can we test the intangible. Rather the theorist is what gets validated.

But the big bang, etc, has practical observations and evidence, and that's one of the things you're objecting to. All science requires support before it becomes properly accepted as true, so none of the things you're actually objecting to fall under the "science in theory" umbrella that you're baselessly asserting they do. You're just talking crap.

I have no doubt there are evidences all around us. What I am saying is it takes faith to attribute them to the current theories of orgins

... But faith in interpretation of said facts is indeed faith sport. That is what i am speaking to. Don't try and red herring your way off topic.

Sorry, no, you're not going to be able to put this all down to interpretation of the facts, that's bullshit. Each of the relevant facts needs to be considered within the framework of every other relevant fact, and they all come together to form conclusions that are as solid as can be. Scientists present their facts and the interpretations thereof together, so you can access one without the other anyway. You don't have to rely on the scientist's interpretation, you can see the facts yourself and come up with your own, even submit it for peer review if you think it's cogent enough to work. The problem is that the scientists generally seem to be right in their interpretations, and the only reason you disagree is because of an unsupported presupposition you carried into things beforehand.

Again, All 'Facts' concerning the big bang are not what is being debated here. It is intrepretation of said facts. If the theory changed has changed/augmented even once, then a measure of faith is indeed required to hold to the newest version.

Also, I'm not sorry. You're a dick.