How is one orgins story considered better than another

[Drich]

[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]

[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.