How is one orgins story considered better than another

[Drich]

No, Drich...there is a difference between theories and laws... please use 5 minutes on google. Models that explain observed effects are what theories are, and there isn't any level "above" theory. This important difference has always existed, and it's not my fault your scientific illiteracy is so gross that you don't understand that laymen's terms =/= scientific terms.

Not what I said sport.

I said The laws of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics were re-classified as theories. When I was in school they were laws, now they are refered to as theories

---

I guess it all depends on who you are speaking with and the purpose of the arguement

---

funny you should say that..

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

Why doesn't that surprise me?

Actually we both learned something after that exchange.

[Tonus]

I said The laws of gravity and the laws of thermodynamics were re-classified as theories. When I was in school they were laws, now they are refered to as theories

They weren't reclassified, they are two different things. It is possible that the attention has shifted from one to the other, or that different courses in physics or astronomy would focus on one over the other. The confusion over the use of the terms 'law' and 'theory' sounds a lot like the confusion over what the word 'theory' means when used in the context of a scientific theory.

From the link:

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.

[Alex K]

I must say though that working in theoretical physics research, these distinctions in terminology simply never come up. Maybe sometimes for very simple relationships between quantities, like the "inverse square law", or in general a power law, but that's it.

[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.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Until you get to the evidence, which can be shown to anyone willing to look.

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.

Bottom line is you had to twist the meaning of both 'faith based' and 'facts' to make that statement. But don't let your mouthings being obvious rubbish slow you down. You're one of the best arguments against creationism for people who can't follow the science I know.

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

Because the kind of 'faith' (trust or confidence) it takes to believe that fossils and DNA aren't a cosmic trick meant to mislead us isn't the same kind of faith (spiritual apprehension) it takes to believe that a copy of ancient manuscript that tells us miracle stories should be taken at face value.

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.

If there is a God, it's certain it's the author of what we find in the ground, it's not certain that it's the author of what we find written on a piece of parchment.

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.

Because one is science and the other is not, they should not be taught together in a science class. It's perfect legal to teach them together in Sunday School, though.

I truly think most of us will be shocked that neither strict interpertation of said events is correct.

Is that because you have evidence to support your contention?

[LostLocke]

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.

No.
If our understanding of physics hadn't changed, you wouldn't be using your computer. Or talking on a cellphone. Or using GPS to find directions.
Etc etc etc.

[Minimalist]

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.

Let me know when you start teaching evolution in your fucking sunday schools, drippy. You hypocrite.

[robvalue]

Why not teach in science class that reality could have been created 5 minutes ago, and all our memories and evidence manufactured to make it seem much longer? Is that another equally valid explanation?

If you spend even 1 second on each possible yet ridiculous scenario, you have no time in the science class for the science.

Theists seem to have this bias towards their own brand of invented unfalsifiable yet useless bullshit, yet can see all the others for what they are. It's amazing religion has got away with this crap for so long when it's all obviously just a huge con.

Your religion is just as nonsense to us as others ones are to you.

[FatAndFaithless]

Or hell, why not teach the origin story of every religion, if Drips is trying to say that they all have to be considered equally likely?

[Minimalist]

Oh, no. Drippy would never say that. He thinks his bullshit doesn't stink.

Hey, drippy. Why not teach "driving out fucking demons" in med school? After all, your fucking jesus spent a lot more time driving out demons than he ever did worrying about who created the universe.