How is one orgins story considered better than another

[Crossless2.0]

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.

No surprise. You sure as hell weren't reading science papers or brushing up on your Karl Popper.

[Tonus]

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

That's not at all what I said. I am pointing out that using faith in support of science is unnecessary, while it is the most important factor in religious belief. There is a reason that the technologies that science discovers and develops work and are predictable, while faith has led us to a world where there are thousands of belief systems, many wholly incompatible with one another and none able to demonstrably prove itself true. Attaching ad-hoc, post-fact explanations can keep religious belief strong, but it only stalls scientific progress.

Faith supports religious belief, but it hinders scientific progress.

[Drich]

False equivalence:

Faith is the set of uncertainty and belief based on unsubstantiated claims (or claims that cannot even be addressed).

Evidentiary Belief is the set of uncertainty and belief based on corroborated, demonstrable evidence.

Since both contain uncertainty, they are both faith-based.


So yes, you are pulling a false equivalence.

Absolute certainty is a bullshit useless concept for dealing with anything in reality. We take the our best guess with the current evidence, and nobody here is claiming that our beliefs are constant or absolute or even true in an epistemological sense. On the contrary, the only constant thing about evidentiary belief is that is must change when new evidence comes to light. Honestly admitting that we don't know for sure is the only rational thing to do, but it certainly isn't "Faith" in any sense.

Ah, no.

I am saying that both stories of orgins have their own (Intangiable)evidences. It takes Faith to accept either.

If you do not believe the science of orgins does not use intangiable evidence then please provide me with something tangiable that supports the current theory and definativly proves the big bang.

So tell me again FF, without tangible evidence, a recreatable event, or something other than a theory based on a theory, how is it you stand in a position of fact not needing faith?

[abaris]

Faith is unchanging. Science is ever changing, since our knowledge broadens. Faith on the other hand is the enemy of knowledge.

[Drich]

Why? because the facts that support your 'theory' are ever changing. It takes a large measure of faith to believe with out doubt that the current version of 'facts' repersent the truth. especially when every few years all of the critical points and dates are changed when ever someone smarter comes along and thinks of something new to add or if something is found in the dirt that cant be explained by the current model.

So, what you're saying is that the only way to use something, like electricity or gravity or medicine, is if we know everything there is to know about it and we know it right now.....

No what i have said a 1/2 dozen times now is that the 'science' behind the things you mentioned (practical/observiable Science) is not the same branch of science that is only theory based. Unless one can demonstrate every aspect of theory based science then he relies on a given theory to be true when speaking of it. This trust in the unknown is faith, no matter how you dress it up.

[FatAndFaithless]

please provide me with something tangiable that supports the current theory and definativly proves the big bang.

And there you go again, portraying science as something that deals in absolute knowledge...

The current evidence suggests a model of the universe that resembles the big bang theory. Just like the evidence has shaped our current theory of gravity or theory of thermodynamics.

[Drich]

please provide me with something tangiable that supports the current theory and definativly proves the big bang.

And there you go again, portraying science as something that deals in absolute knowledge...

The current evidence suggests a model of the universe that resembles the big bang theory. Just like the evidence has shaped our current theory of gravity or theory of thermodynamics.

The theory of thermodynamics and of gravity up until 10 years ago were refered to as the laws of...

Why the change? so that d-bags can lend crediblity to the fringe aspects of science like evolution and to the big bang. To meld everything science like into one big subject. Just so D-bags can say "if you doubt what use to be known as fringe science you must also doubt practical demonstratible science as well!

Good job FF you have demonstrated that you mind is awash with everything the state wants you to believe.

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, that's about the whole of it Drich. Every scientist in the world, in fact -all science- is a giant conspiracy to make you look like an ignorant twat.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yep, that's about the whole of it Drich. Every scientist in the world, in fact -all science- is a giant conspiracy to make you look like an ignorant twat.

I doubt he even needs the combined nefarious conspiracy of scientists worldwide to make him look like an ignorant twat..