Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 131
  • Darwins +5/-0

 religions tend to diverge over time with new denominations or even whole new religions popping up because people disagree on smaller and smaller details of interpretation. Religion changes for the worse every day, getting further and further from each other.

Science works the opposite way, multiple hypotheses in disagreement are filtered by new evidence, better understanding of the evidence and newer, more acccurate tools for analyzing evidence. When a hypothesis is discarded it's because one that explains the evidence better replaced it. When einstein came up with relativity it didn't invalidate isaac newton's laws, it refined them. In fact, newton's laws of motion and thermodynamics got us to the moon and back just fine, but they don't quite explain enough to get GPS satellites woring right. That took general and special relativity.

There's little evidence that people thought the world was flat, anyone who had climed up a mountain or watched a ship sail away would see the curvature of the earth.  The ancient greeks even managed to calculate the circumference to a high degree of accuracy.

One of tuing things you don't seem to get skep, is that not all wrongs are created equal. If you have two people and one says the earth is flat and the other says that it's a sphere, they are both wrong. But they are not equally wrong, the sphere is far closer to the fact that it's a distorted spheroid. Likewise, you have one group claiming that the earth is 6, 000 years old (or 10, 000, or less than a million, or not billions, religion can't seem to get their answer straight. ) and you have many fields of science concluding that it's around 4.5 billion years or so. If more accurate evidence points to it being a bit older it doesn't make the previous answer just as wrong as the young earth creationists

I suggest that in order to at least appear to understand what everyone is talking about you should head to talkorigins.org and read all of it. You'll always fail when you try to argue against something you don't understand. That's why so many of us here have read and studies multiple versions of the bible as well as other holy books. The winner isn't the one who understands their own position the best, it's the one who understands their opponent's position better than their opponent does.

If you want to really make any of us think, come up with an argument for creation that we haven't already heard. Otherwise, go study for a while and come back when you know the evidence well enough to refute it.
Changed Change Reason Date
screwtape heck yes November 13, 2013, 02:33:05 PM