Creationism.

[Verto]

I do wonder...why are you so certain about science? What we accept as scientific truth constantly changes.

[Boris Godunov]

Scientific theories are one thing, scientific observations another. What theories say is alterable given new evidence, but it's very difficult to suggest that actual observation is wrong. Regardless, I challenge you to find a scientific truth that has arisen since scientific method became widespread that has as much evidence and support as evolution being overturned by something new. If there's a viable alternative to evolution, where is it?

And if you accept animals evolve, it is nonsensical to think humans didn't, since we have so many vestigial traits from other animals. The biological similarity we share with other animals is so great that such a belief appears untenable. Genetically, we are more closely related to chimpanzees than chimps are related to cats or dogs. Such would not be true if we had not all evolved from common ancestors. Why would we be made with a tailbone and other vestiges suited to quadropeds if we were completely separate, distinct creatures?

Microbiology and genetics have rather conclusively shown we are related to the rest of the living world, all part of a continuous biomass. Fossil evidence has also shown that human beings have evolved from earlier primates. Unless you're dismissing all the extinct humanoids (Cro-Magnon, Neandethals, Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, etc.), saying we didn't evolve is unsupportable.

[Vesayen]

You shouldnt accept anything as truth when it comes to science-just the best explination known.

I think the big bang is bull-honkey-it leaves WAYYYYYYYY to many questions unexplained, but I accept that it is the best explination we know of because it has the most evidence for it. I accept it as the MOST LIKLEY truth known, but not as truth itself.

[Boris Godunov]

What about the Big Bang is bull-honkey? I'm curious to know if you've actually read in depth about the Big Bang, or are just dismissive of it because it sounds inexplicable to you?

Is there any other explanation for the observation that the universe is speeding away in all directions from a single point?

[LordVipper]

As the "tools" improve the observation of phenomena becomes more accurate and more information becames available about any given topic that is added to a theory.theories completely falling apart and replaced by something new are not all that common. and scientific theories are only what we know so far, not the "truth"
there are gaping holes in some theories such as where did the first particle came from or that since the universe is finite what contains it but those are just questions to be answered,not a reason to burn our books and go back to worshiping graven idols or exorcizing mental illiness with holy water.

[Boris Godunov]

A good point...even the falsifications of any scientific theory will not lead to "ergo, the supernatural." The supernatural must be proven of its own accord. Creationism isn't preposterous because evolution is true, it's preposterous because it has been shown to be scientifically false. Not just a lesser explanation, but an outright false one. It's rather difficult to get around that.

[Japher]

It's rather difficult to get around that.

But the try

Uh, yeah, uh, God created gravity. We knew it was there all along we just weren't going to tell you. God already told us. To late Newton, you silly oaf. If only you had faith.

[LordVipper]

supernatural....i dont like that word at all. a phenomenon is either natural (happens) or false (doesnt happen).If we accept that someone can fly we have to research it as something natural (he can fly.why? how? why cant everyone?).

[Elok]

Supernatural powers can only be acquired by trying to get them instead of hanging around in forums trying to dissuade people of beliefs they are perfectly happy with, that don't affect them or you in any way, and do not cause them to blow up buildings. Especially considering that they probably stopped reading this thread a page and a half back.
But Happy Trolls to you too.

[Boris Godunov]

"Supernatural" refers to phenomena associated with the powers of a spiritual entity, i.e. God, that act in contradiction to the established laws of physics. There's no way of getting around that using God as explanation for things is invoking the supernatural.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Creationism isn't preposterous because evolution is true, it's preposterous because it has been shown to be scientifically false.

You can't disprove Creationism, given that the Judeo-Christian god is omniscient and omnipotent. Or so most Christians hold that anyway.

In this regard, liberal Christians are so much more insidious than fundamentalists, as Dawkins once observed, as their idea of God is much more nebulous.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Japher
Yet, what if science learns to de-evolve organsims, and what if we take say an Elephant and begins to de-evolve it, and in the end we end up with a man, or a monkey, or a tree?

One more thing.

Evolution really doesn't mean "moving from the simple to the complex," it is just local adaptions to external pressures.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Evolution is abundantly supported by evidence, as much as gravity and heliocentricity are. Do those have problems, too?

You should be careful with your terminology. If you really mean 'evolution' in the above then I agree with your parallel - all three are observed phenomena, so they (in all but definition) do exist. But I supest that you mean 'evolution by natural selection', in which case they are not the same. Evolution by natural selection is a theory (despite what you said earlier) of how evolution comes about, in the same way that Newton's laws or general relativity are theories of gravity. So you would be better to compare to, for example, general relativity.

Do you believe that general relativity is correct?

To paraphrase Dawkins, scientists refuse to claim absolute certainty even with abundant proof. Creationists jump to claim absolute certainty without any proof.

The first half of this is one of the few sensible statements Dawkins has ever made - its a pity he spoils it with the second half. Science can never 'prove' anything absolutely because assumptions are made on route. Instead they set limits at which some model or theory becomes the accepted 'truth' but even then try to disporve it. This is their job. This is what science is supposed to do. (I may be biased here, but I think in physics the level at which a theory becomes truth seems an awful lot higher than it does in evolutionary studies. This is one of the reasons I am not 100% happy with evolution - I don't trust people like Dawkins. I find it interesting how so many untrained advocates of evolution accept Dawkins word as a matter of faith. )

To suppose that faith and religion should operate the same way as science is just ludicrous. Faith by definition doesn't need proof.

What about the Big Bang is bull-honkey? I'm curious to know if you've actually read in depth about the Big Bang, or are just dismissive of it because it sounds inexplicable to you?

No respectable cosmologist would claim that the Big Bang is accepted truth. They would say it is the best model we have, but that is as far as it goes. There are a lot of unanswered questions. Since you seem to believe in the Big Bang, maybe you can answer them? Let me give you one example:

In the Big Bang itself (or more precisely immediately afterward), energy is converted into matter by pair production - particles and anti-particles are formed in pairs. But if this is true, where are is all the antimatter? There should be an equal amount of antimatter and matter in the universe, but we know that the universe we see around us is almost 100% composed of matter. This problem is known as the 'baryon asymmetry of the universe problem' (in case you want to google it).

Or what about dark matter? Why is the gravitational attraction of the universe stronger than it should be from the observed mass? The speculation is that the universe is filled by weakly coupled particles which add the extra mass (or alternatively, and less likely, very compact, very heavy astrophysical objects). But what is it? Is it a neutralino? Maybe, but then we need low energy supersymmetry and all its associated problems (the mu-problem anyone?). Is it an axion? Maybe, but the parameter space left for axions is getting tight, introducing fine-tuning problems. So what is it? If such a particle is not there the theory will fall apart.

Is there any other explanation for the observation that the universe is speeding away in all directions from a single point?

Yes - there are lots, they are only not so accepted as the big bang, and to be fair have even more extreme problems than the bb has. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, or for that matter the big bang right.

[MikeH]

Do people really still believe in literal 7 day creation story or do they just pretend to so that they can annoy people on internet forums?

[Bereta_Eder]

Can I play the devil's advocate on God's behalf?

It does strike you as odd no, that some of the holy scriptures' passages about creation bare such a similarity with scientific finds?

For example: at first there was void and then he said light and there was light etc.
it somewhat resembles the big bang theory as would be recited and grasped from someone hundrends of centuries ago

and let's not get into the ancient greek myths the symbolisms there are breathtaking, what with the battle of the titans (teutonic movement early in the earth's history, creation of continents etc)


It is interesting to see the similarities even if they are done through symbolisms. some could say that this is just 21th century minds trying to accomodate modern scientific finds with ancient mythologies or christian holy scriptures but beyond that they do sound rather similar, with limitations of course.


however that doesnt necesairily put more weight on the existance of god. just that people back then had a vage idea of what was going down