How is one orgins story considered better than another

[Drich]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Mothonis]

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.

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.

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.

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.

WRONG! I believe things based on evidence.We dont believe in Scientist claims simply based on there authority,but on wether or not they can prove or demonstrate there claims.

[FatAndFaithless]

Ugh, more of this false equivalence shit. Fuck off with your dishonest definition of "faith" and don't compare unsubstantiated claims of supernatural bullshittery from 2000 years ago to history of which we have physical writings, artifacts, and accounts.

[abaris]

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.

[Natachan]

What is the corroborating evidence ft the bible? Very little. I do not trust books simply because they are books. I believe what they say if I can corroborate it in some way. For example, my strengths professor says three boards fastened together with screws can hold more weight than the same three boards simply stacked on top of each other. He brings in three boards screwed together and stands on it. It holds. He takes out a drill and removes the screws. He stands on it again. It breaks. The claim is supported.

Evolution has credence because of the mountains of corroborating evidence. Physics has my support because I have done a lot of corroborating experiments.

Creationism has no corroborating evidence. As such that one is the weaker position.

[Drich]

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.

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.

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.

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.

WRONG! I believe things based on evidence.We dont believe in Scientist claims simply based on there authority,but on wether or not they can prove or demonstrate there claims.

Wrong yourself. You believe in the interpretation of what has been identified as evidence for you. (I am assuming that you have not completed the equasions used to caculate out 'the big bang' nor dug deep enough into the strata or carbon dated anything yourself.)

Which again if you are taking the interpretation of another's 'evidence' for your own, then like it or not sport your actions fall under Faith.

[LostLocke]

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.

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.

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.....
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?

[FatAndFaithless]

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?

[Tonus]

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.

[Esquilax]

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.

No, I won't. Because I actually have some understanding of how the mechanisms those smart people have illuminated work, and a knowledge of the means they used to come to those conclusions. Do not think that just because you don't understand science, nobody else can either.

Some of us actually bother to try.

And for them what they think is based on what someone smarter than them thinks, and so on goes the daisy chain.

We stand upon the shoulders of the people who came before us in terms of communal knowledge, this is true. But it's not the end of the story either; at some point observations were made. Evidence was presented and considered. In terms of ideas an infinite regress is impossible, we can't all just believe certain things because "somebody else who was smart thought so," ideas originate somewhere. And in terms of our scientific knowledge many of those ideas were unprecedented and unthinkable at the time. They came about because of observation and evidence, not the chain of arguments from authority you seem to (I believe dishonestly, but you might just be legitimately ignorant about large swathes of human history) believe it does.

When Galileo was pressured to recant his theory that the earth orbits the sun, he said "And yet it moves," not "but X smart guy believes it moves!" He understood that scientific truth is based on objective evidence, and remains true regardless of the opinions of others. A better demonstration of how poorly your lazy equivocation fits the real world I could not ask for.

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.

If you have evidence, and conform what you consider factual to fit that, no faith is required. In order for what you're saying to be true you'd need to ignore hundreds of years of data collection, evidence, and back and forth explanation from the scientific community. Funnily enough, I have no trouble picturing you doing exactly that.

That being the case what makes your faith any more important than anyone elses?

The fact that it isn't faith, outside of the dishonest or ignorant views of someone like you.

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.

No, sorry; pointing at a book to tell you what you think of observations is what you christians do, but it's not what I do, nor is it what science does. What science presents in its books are things that are replicable by others, that can be verified with ease in the real world. It is not simply a matter of pointing to a book, because there are simple ways to demonstrate that the observations in that book are objectively true and not mistaken. If they are either of those things, then the books are amended to match that.

These are all things that the religious will not or cannot do, by the way.

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.

As much as you want it to be true, Drich, facts are not a matter of opinion. They are not up for a vote, and you to not get to pretend that things which are demonstrably real are equivalent to things you make up, can't show, but really, really believe in.