Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
Evolutionists (which I do believe for the most part) need more faith in science than creationists in the bible. Scientific theories keep changing
|
That's because theories are based on evidence and observation. A theory should explain all explained phenomenon. If it doesn't, then the theory isn't complete, and everyone who understands the theory knows this and accepts this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
and you don't even know if there is a hidden political/personal agenda behind any of this.
|
Sure you do, it's usually pretty simple to find out where the funding for some study comes from, and all the results and data are usually completely public, so that other scientists can extend, verify, or refute whatever it is.
Some scientists do have personal agendas, or work for organizations that are motivated by a specific agenda, but they usually end up on the fringe if not outright ignored.. the media will often take their findings and make a big deal (like the recent Penrose thing about the universe), but it's more important to look at what the other scientists do. In any given field there's usually tens of thousands or more of scientists, they can't possibly all hold the same hidden agenda. Most scientists are scientists because they love science, to accuse all of them of having a hidden agenda is pretty unfair.
Evidence always trumps any agenda, and science has demonstrated repeatedly over the years that it will self adjust despite people who intentionally try to manipulate science for their own ends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
Humans started 200 thousand years ago no 400 thousands years ago.
|
That's not the case here, because their findings haven't been verified.
However even if they were, what are you supposed to do in light of new evidence? Refuse to change? That's dogma, not reason. You live the rest of your life like this already, if someone tells you your car has been stolen, you don't just say "nope, I saw my car last night, you are wrong", you check and if your car is gone you will change your position based on new evidence.
Take gravity, Newton had a theory of gravity. It couldn't even be fully tested until well after his death, but when it could be it met all the tests swimmingly. Great right? Eventually though observations began to be made (the orbit of Mercury) that Newton could not explain.
So what's the response at that point? Do we throw up our hands and say "gravity takes more faith to believe than god moving things around with his own hand"? Does that disprove gravity? Of course not, you just recognize that the theory isn't complete. Later on Einstein came along and made a new theory of gravity that DOES account for the observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
We came from one organism now we came from many
|
Who says this? Common descent of all life as well supported as anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
believe scientists on the big bang and evolution but not on climate change and tailings ponds and it goes on and on.
|
Sounds like you are listening to what the media or people with an agenda (creationists who refuse to accept evolution based on something other than evidence), not the actual science.
It doesn't take any faith to look at the evidence of the big bang or evolution and accept it, because it's based on observations, it makes predictions that are confirmed, and best explains all the observed phenomenon.
Think of it this way, you have the fact of something, and the theory that explains it. Gravity is an observed phenomenon, and the theory of gravity (general relativity) describes it. Evolution is also an observed phenomenon, the frequency of alleles in a population changes over time, and the theory of evolution describes how that happens, mutation and natural selection. The universe has a history, and the big bang is a theory that best describes all the observed phenomenon about the universe from its earliest moments until now.
And it also sounds like you are looking for an absolute truth. Science doesn't deal with absolute truth.
This might be helpful:
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
How do I know I am currently not believing in a scientific study that is completely false. Maybe pictures or it didn't happen is the right way to go.
|
Pictures can be falsified, they can be misinterpreted, put into incorrect context, etc.. If you trust the media to deliver your science news, then you will have a great deal of difficulty deciding if a study is completely false or not, because the media is quite dumb. There are a number of things you can use to help evaluate a study.
The first is to actually read the study, if there is one at all. This tooth thing isn't even a scientific study yet, so while interesting it's not something to put a lot of stock in yet.
Has the study been published in a peer reviewed journal?
What journal was it published in? Is the journal well regarded by the other scientists in that field, or is it a place where people get to publish whatever foolishness they want and pass it off as "science".
What are the responses to the paper? Is it referenced by other scientists in other papers? How often? Are there other papers that support it? Or refute it?
And that's just going with what other people say. If you want you can learn how papers are written, how to identify good and flawed experiments, learn if the statistical methodology is accurate or misleading.
And eventually you can become familiar with the subject matter yourself, learning the science itself to the point where you can make a judgment for yourself with regards to the content.
The difficult with all of that is it takes time and effort, science isn't easy, there's a reason it takes many years to understand some things. If you really want to know something, you have to dive in and learn it for yourself, though there are always enthusiastic people along the way to help.
Ultimately the position to start out with is agnosticism.. if you don't understand something, then don't take a position on it, especially not just because of a desire to believe it. "I don't know" is a perfectly fine answer, one people need to use a lot more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
I need less faith believing in creation which I also do somewhat believe (when not taken literally)
|
I don't think it's clear what you are saying here... you say not to take creation literally, but that it takes less faith to believe it. If you aren't taking it literally, then it takes 100% faith because it's a figurative thing not a literal thing. Or what are you comparing the creation against?
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
