You're falling into the same fallacy as so many others do, not understanding the basic premise of science and what a "theory" and what "assumptions" are. In fact, you yourself have stated what is quite a critical distinction between science and faith - "Science proves itself wrong every other day now." It is in the very nature of science to both question and attempt to answer all the questions about the universe. That science is advancing so rapidly is indeed the proof of how much we don't know and how quickly we're getting to grips with many of the fundamental truths of the universe and our reality. Postulating, proving and disproving hypotheses is what science does. That anyone's ideas are rigorously tested and if shown to have any errors or questions they are exposed publicly is one of its biggest strengths. This is why the conspiracy theorists are wrong - anyone can disprove anyone else's hypothesis, and nobody's hypothesis is accepted unless it is fully reviewed by the scientist's peers and the experimental results are repeated in similar conditions by other people. This is a strength of science, not a weakness.cambod wrote:They both have about as many holes as Swiss cheese.Ant. wrote:No, they don't.Design theory vs the theory of evolution.
They both require about the same amount of faith.
Science proves itself wrong every other day now.
Again, science still has more questions than answers about the universe. They are just as guilty as the creationists; they both love to yell "FACT!" when they really don't know.
Anything u read in science "books" is almost ancient compared to current science journals. That's how fast science is changing.
This is another common fallacy, that if evolution is true, then scientists should be able to duplicate it in a lab. In fact, they already have demonstrated evolution of species in a lab by showing how different bacteria can evolve different characteristics over the course of thousands of generations of bacteria exposed to different changes in their environment that were designed to encourage such a change. And of course there have been many new species of organisms created in science labs, usually unfortunately in order to create new ways to kill our "enemies". Of course, they're not synthesizing these organisms from scratch. Similar to the transitional gap argument, as soon as a scientist does manage to create an amino acid in lab conditions from nothing, the standard will simply be raised to "create a person in the lab from nothing".cambod wrote:(And for the record, I believe in some sort of intelligent design. Even the smallest single celled organism seems too complex to randomly happen without a higher power making it, even after zillions of zillions of years. And no, I'm not Christian or anything else. Once science, with all their understanding and high-tech equipment, can create ANY sort of life under any circumstances of their choice, then I'll consider the possibility that this all just "randomly" happened.)
Don't give up your day job.cambod wrote:Also, "science" can't verify half the stuff they come up with.
Carbon dating? Until they have a rock they have been monitoring for billions of years, I think there is room for HUGE errors.
They say they "know" the composition of Earth? They can't verify anything less than a few kilometers deep.
Mapping the distance of stars billions of light years away without being able to confirm a single one of them? All just theories that they can't verify.
Again, they could very well be right about many of these things, but it still requires a lot of faith until ANY of these things can actually be verified in the same units they are using.
The whole BASIS of science is verifying hypotheses. Carbon dating is widely accepted and has been verified countless times. Check out this video (I won't embed it). What you're REALLY saying is "I don't understand science, and because what I've had explained to me sounds ridiculously complicated and beyond my world framework of understanding, I choose to not believe it.
The way a hypothesis works is this. You study a subject and understand the principles that have been verified to date through experimentation and analysis. You postulate something that you think would be the case based on these principles and understanding of how things work. You then go and look for it. When you find exactly what you think you were going to find, then you've verified your hypothesis. Then you repeat it to make sure you got it right. Then you send the results to other scientists who review the paper and decide whether its viable. After they question and are satisfied with the answers, you publish the paper in a reputable journal. Other scientists can then review, comment, question, challenge and repeat the experiment if they think they don't believe the data or the results.cambod wrote:It is kind of like thinking, "If 8 hours of sleep is good for u, then 16 would be even better, and 32 must be even better than that!" That might sound like a good theory if we weren't able to actually TRY sleeping more than 8 hours (because of time restrictions, or whatever.) But, 16 hours is not a lot of time for us. We can ACTUALLY try sleeping 16 hours+ and KNOW that theory is bullshit. But, until we actually put it to the test, we wouldn't really know that, and it might have seemed reasonable to assume such nonsense.
You CAN do this with rocks going back into the deep past, and you CAN do this with stellar observations. You don't need to go and see the freakin' star to verify that it exists. Do you think the sun exists, or do you have to get on a space ship and go there to find out? Hell, based on your standard, you'd have had to assume I didn't exist until I was sitting in front of you drinking a beer in Vientiane. That's one way to do it, but hardly a practical one.
Wrong again. The whole basis of science and scientists is "prove to me that what you're saying is true, and until a better or more detailed explanation is proven, that will be acceptable and form part of my overall body of knowledge on this subject." They may well think "there are parts of this idea I can accept, but others I don't" as well. They may also think "that's contrary to my understanding/experience/intuition, and in this case they'll likely set out to disprove the theory or find a better one. Science is a very dynamic field that is changing all the time. I would say "evolving", but that takes so long and happens so minutely and incrementally it would be a bad characterization.cambod wrote:And also, for the record, I consider myself undecided. Once u decide u KNOW the answer to something, u stop looking for facts and start looking for "supporting facts," and that's all u can see.