I do wonder...why are you so certain about science? What we accept as scientific truth constantly changes.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Creationism.
Collapse
X
-
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.Tutto nel mondo è burla
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
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?Tutto nel mondo è burla
Comment
-
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.Devout Believer of the Invisible Pink unicorn
Comment
-
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.Tutto nel mondo è burla
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
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.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Comment
-
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?
Evolution really doesn't mean "moving from the simple to the complex," it is just local adaptions to external pressures.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Evolution is abundantly supported by evidence, as much as gravity and heliocentricity are. Do those have problems, too?
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.)
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?
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?
Comment
-
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?Jon Miller: MikeH speaks the truth
Jon Miller: MikeH is a shockingly revolting dolt and a masturbatory urine-reeking sideshow freak whose word is as valuable as an aging cow paddy.
We've got both kinds
Comment
-
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
Comment
Comment