How is one orgins story considered better than another

[abaris]

Yep, that's about the whole of it Drich. Every scientist in the world, in fact -all science- is a giant conspiracy to make you look like an ignorant twat.

What's that about making you look like? Science deals in facts after all.

[rexbeccarox]

Drich, you're like a kid in kindergarten trying to teach his teacher how to read.

funny you should say that..

I spent most of last week teaching my preacher what to preach.

Why doesn't that surprise me?

[Esquilax]

No you won't be honest with yourself?!?! Why?

Oh, fuck off you quote mining douche.

So because you think you know better you don't have to honestly look and re-evaluate the situation? Don't look now but I thin your breaking a cardnial rule of the scientific method.

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.

Way to strawman right after that quote mine, Drich.

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.

Again I have no issue with that so long as the science of orgins is identified for what it is. (our current best guess without God.)

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

When Galileo

Seriously!?! You have to go all the way back to galileo to find a valid point?

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

Again you are Mistakingly (I don't think it is intentional I honestly do not believe you know any better) identifying real observiable demonstratiable Science, for the fringe theory based crap that can never be recreated. Again that's what makes it fringe science. That what makes it faith based 'science.'

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.

But again, can you demonstrate anything concerning orgins on the level Galileo did? He made a statement concerning the earth in relationship to the sun, and was able to prove it mathmatically and with the use of instrumentation/telescope and triangulating our position in the sun's orbit.

The best anyone can do in the science of orgins is point to another guy's theory. In that if theory is correct then their theory is valid, and so on.

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.

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.

I have ignored nothing, as i have accuratly point out the huge differences between practical science and science only based in theory. It seems to me your the one ignoring the fact that the two branches of science are not on par with each other.

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.

... 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.

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

] Science yes. The science of orgins.. Ah, no.

Oh look, another random assertion and baseless mockery. How convincing.

Strawman

I have stated a fact is a statement that can be proved or disproved. Not all facts are truth, yet fringe science supporters would have yoou believe this very inaccurate Fact.

"Not all facts are truth"? What the fuck are you talking about?

[rexbeccarox]

"Demonstratiable"?????

Really???

I just... I can't... what the fuck...?

... and here I was thinking "defination" and "possiable" were ridiculous.

[Crossless2.0]

If only there was a Nobel Prize for shit shoveling . . .

[Violet]

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.

I don't know, I'm pretty arrogant. I somehow don't believe that I'm smarter than myself.

After all, I am the Potential.

Bottom line what you believe about which ever side of orgins you stand on your belief is 'Faith based.' Fore a faith in 'facts' (A statement that can be proven or disprooved) is still faith.

True. Everything I see in this world (and believe in) is based on my faith that it's real. Justifications only serve to bridge to a point, but one must jump, however difficult it may or may not be for them, for ne'er shall the bridge meet the other side alone.

That being the case what makes your faith any more important than anyone elses? Just because you point at the ground then to a book to decipher what it is you think you see in the ground, does not make you any less dependant on faith, than a man who points to God then the bible to discern his version of Orgins.

Well, it's mine, and I'm important to me, so.... I judge my beliefs to be most important to me. I'm human, what do you expect?

Indeed, for both of them are fools. One is a religious nutter who claims The Dream is all an invention of some willful being, and the other a nutter who ACTUALLY BELIEVES IN THE DREAM! MADNESS!!!!

Why shouldn't both accounts be taught side by side, not as an excersize of which is right and which is wrong, but as what some believe verses what others believe. I truly think most of us will be shocked that neither strict interpertation of said events is correct.

For the same reason that no belief should ever be 'taught'... allow people to learn... if they want to. They can learn everything in their own time... they don't need you, either of you. There's more to life than 'education' and 'indoctrination'...

Odd, isn't it? How hilariously wrong everything all is... how utterly absurd this world is. One might consider that it's all for someone's benefit, for their entertainment... but it's only a facet of the intense confusion that makes up The Dream.

[Minimalist]

Drich, you're like a kid in kindergarten trying to teach his teacher how to read.

funny you should say that..

I spent most of last week teaching my preacher what to preach.

Wow. What a fucking loser he must be.

[TheRealJoeFish]

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.

There is so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. But I'll try:

- Our understanding of physics changes ALL THE EFFING TIME as experiment confirms or refutes theory. Or do you mean Newtonian physics?

-What are all these changes in our understanding of creation in the last 20 years that you are talking about? I'm pretty sure the theory of evolution was just as solid 20 years ago. Age of the universe? Experiments getting better! What are your examples of the scientific consensus changing?

No, here's what I really think is happening: I think our understanding in ALL fields of science - math, chemistry, physics, biology, cosmology, medicine, and any combination of those (like evolution) - is changing more rapidly now than ever. But only one of these is a hot-button issue among the religious right, and that's the only one they bother to pay attention to and talk about and listen to each other about, and so that's the only branch of science the constant changes in and refinings of which they're aware of.
/end rant

[Natachan]

If Drich has an education in science then he has no excuse for this bull shit. None. Any university that would grant a bachelor of science to someone who made a statement like those he has put up here has done that person a gross disservice. I forgive the know-nothing's who spout this. They have no education in this. But to someone who has the education I have nothing but contempt.

Any science teacher will tell their students that nothing is taken on faith. Everything must be tested and retested. Everything must be corroborated by experimentation and observation. To push this home the physics class I took had us derive all the constants we used in lecture through experimentation. We had to demonstrate the laws of motion, energy, and other phenomena through work in the lab.

Then the claim that all work in science is based in faith. That we can't be sure. I work in research. Among one of the jobs we have is to test in the structures lab the bridges and roads to see if they are sound. We are given samples of the road and bridge material. Our job is to determine of the material is so deteriorated that it is unsafe for public use. If we say the material is too damaged, then the bridge is deemed unsafe. If it passes our tests, then we say the bridge is safe. Do you think that the departments of transportations that send us these samples take our word on faith? Or do they do so because of the repeated reliability of our results? (My professor once took a sledgehammer to a concrete pillar when someone doubted it wasn't safe. Hint: concrete isn't supposed to break that easy.)

[robvalue]

My God, what is Allah this racket? Jesus.

A nice bit of tu quo fallacy? My belief may be worthless but so is yours?

Shall we compare the success of the scientific method versus religious hand waving, and see which has a better track record for getting shit done? In reality, this is. Where shall we start...