How is one orgins story considered better than another

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='809423' dateline='1417635072']
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

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

Never mind you answered my question:

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.

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.

Do not think that just because you don't understand science, nobody else can either.

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.

Some of us actually bother to try.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

When Galileo

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

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!"

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

... 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

---

I've studied science. I know that if I scratch beneath the surface, I find substance. I've studied 'creationism'. I know that if I scratch beneath the surface, I find bullshit.

I've seen that science builds computers, phones, and rocket ships. Creationism just builds piles and piles of treacherous words. The fruits are different.

Faith in science rests on faith in an ordered society, where certain groups do certain things. I can see that with my eyes. I can live it.

Faith in creationism rests in blindly believing the words of anonymous writers who wrote over 2,000 years ago. It doesn't compare.

I love that you studied both. that is what I am advocating. That both be made avaiable for study and let the student make up their own mind. that's it...

Point two I was making was the fact the Science of cell phones, space ships and medcine is not the science of orgins. This should also be taught.