How is one orgins story considered better than another

[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.