How is one orgins story considered better than another

[Drich]

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.

But that's just it, they are not usally right. Honestly look at how many times the various theories have changed over the last couple hundred years. What this particualr branch of 'science' has done is tied it self at the hip to legitmate science. Like physics and Chemistry, and we assume because physics and chemistry is demonstraitably correct and because there is a lot of physics and chemistry used in the sciences of 'orgins' that it too is a legit brand of science. But again don't look at it's neighbors, look at it itself. 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. But, this is not what the sciences of Orgins does. No It starts with a 200 year old hypothsis that never changes, and then looks for (Stronger) 'evidence' to support it. When in any other branch of science if a variable changes then so too changes the hypothsis.

this is the very defination of a confirmation bias.

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.....

Not disputing that fact, actually this is the bullit I am using to prove that it takes a measure of faith to believe what you believe.

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?

which again the answer is no all across the board, why because everything in the science of orgins is a theory. Nothing can be proved which again points to a great faith a given person must have to say definativly this is what happened.

---

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?

To go all minnie on me I must really be striking a nerve.

---

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.

I know how it works, as I wrote this thread explaining how it works.. I am simply pointing to the fact that 'How it works' uses the same faith as Christianity uses.

---

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.

So, you agree. What you believe in science is based on the same faith Christians use to believe in God.

[Mothonis]

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.

OBJECTION we can research and verify the claims ourselves,and science uses peer review.

[FatAndFaithless]

Toot toot, false equivalence train comin' through!

You can keep repeating it over and over if you want Drich, but the ability to repeat and corroborate scientific evidence is what separates it from your "faith".

[rexbeccarox]

Anyone else seen Louis CK's "Pig Newtons" monologue? The OP reminds me of Louis' 3-year old.

Haven't. Is it good?

The "Pig Newtons" part is around 4:00:

[Exian]

To the OP: That this is what you think of science, and how you think it goes about being accepted, it's no wonder you don't believe any of it. I wouldn't believe any of it either, if it was based on the intelligence of the scientist, rather than the observations.

[Esquilax]

But that's just it, they are not usally right. Honestly look at how many times the various theories have changed over the last couple hundred years.

Yeah, those are called "refinements," not incorrect hypotheses. Would you prefer that science didn't update itself continually with regards to new information, to most accurately represent reality? If the scientific community didn't do that you'd be bitching even louder.

Just admit the truth, Drich: you don't want science to be effective and so you're doing whatever you can to drag it down, regardless of the truth.

[Minimalist]

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.

You should exercise your constitutional rights, drippy.



Because when you open your mouth the stupid flows out.

[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.

[FatAndFaithless]

This is like watching some douchebag shit on a wall, then point to the Mona Lisa and because they both have the color brown, they're equal.

[Drich]

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.