How is one orgins story considered better than another

[Drich]

You know, I'll grant you that a lot of times we take, and 'trust', what a certain person or group says at face value.
But, there are two parts to that. Firstly, it's likely they have a track record of being right, making it easier to accept what they say.

But that's just it, they are not usally right. Honestly look at how many times the various theories have changed over the last couple hundred years. What this particualr branch of 'science' has done is tied it self at the hip to legitmate science. Like physics and Chemistry, and we assume because physics and chemistry is demonstraitably correct and because there is a lot of physics and chemistry used in the sciences of 'orgins' that it too is a legit brand of science. But again don't look at it's neighbors, look at it itself. Look at how many times it has changed in just the last 20 years. If our understanding of physics changed as many times we would everything throw out and start over. But, this is not what the sciences of Orgins does. No It starts with a 200 year old hypothsis that never changes, and then looks for (Stronger) 'evidence' to support it. When in any other branch of science if a variable changes then so too changes the hypothsis.

this is the very defination of a confirmation bias.

And secondly, and one of THE best things about science, is that we don't have to take at face value anything anyone says.
You can independently verify what they claim.....

Not disputing that fact, actually this is the bullit I am using to prove that it takes a measure of faith to believe what you believe.

Have others tried their work? Did they verify or disprove the original work? Do other fields or data support their idea? Is there concordance? Is there convergence? Are there predictions based on it? Is there a working model built off of it? Is there real world applications derived from it?

which again the answer is no all across the board, why because everything in the science of orgins is a theory. Nothing can be proved which again points to a great faith a given person must have to say definativly this is what happened.

---

Blah blah blah "Unless you've seen or figured something for yourself you have faith" blah blah... Is this really the level of bullshit to which you have to sink in order to drag scientific theory down to the level of sky-daddy fairy tales?

To go all minnie on me I must really be striking a nerve.

---

Now before you spend alot of energy telling of all the 'proof' you think you have. Be honest with yourself and acknoweledge that It all boils down to you pointing to a guy or a group of people who you believe to be credible because they are smarter than you, and what they think. And for them what they think is based on what someone smarter than them thinks, and so on goes the daisy chain.

That's how it works. Beats a book by ancient goat fuckers by a long stretch.

There is real life evidence for evolution. And even a natural science idiot like me can understand most of it. And it's not faith. I don't worship evolution, I simply see the evidence by countless sources that - as opposed to the bible - don't contradict itself.

I know how it works, as I wrote this thread explaining how it works.. I am simply pointing to the fact that 'How it works' uses the same faith as Christianity uses.

---

The science-based explanation of the origins of the universe is incomplete by admission, and the discoveries that have led to the current theories and hypotheses can be enumerated and tested by others. That's why the theories have developed over time. Why would we take the word of these men for granted? We shouldn't, otherwise we might get locked into following the men instead of the science, and we would not progress in knowledge. If they happen to be wrong, we are not concerned that they might consign us to torment for rejecting their ideas.

Nor do we have to take them for granted. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists the world over, debating and testing these theories and forming new hypotheses of their own, which will also be tested. Some of their work will deliver tangible products, like the cars we drive and the clothes we wear and the computers we type these messages on and the electric grid that powers them. If you do science "wrong" you get poor results. Do it right and you get the expected results. By contrast, the best you can get from religion is vague explanations that require additional explanation after you get the results, and which are easily contested by another religious person because his way works for him and therefore your way cannot possibly work. And since neither of you can test them in any way that can deliver repeatable and quantifiable results, you'll never prove one another right or wrong.

The two do not stand on the same ground in regards to how they can be researched and tested, because religious people have many varying (and in some cases, completely different) ideas of how the universe came into existence, and many of them are willing to come to blows (and even farther) to force their version on everyone else. There is no recognized way of dealing with the differences and inconsistencies among them.

So, you agree. What you believe in science is based on the same faith Christians use to believe in God.