I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Richard Dawkins debating Evangelists about the last 4,000 years. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Jace Connors car crash. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
7
posts
Richard Dawkins holy grail is Darwin's theory of evolution, while Darwin himself claimed to be a theist.
The theory of evolution in 2024 is still a theory. Since it's made famous by popular science, is considered factual to such a degree, it's used as a more plausible theory next to the big bang.
What's interesting is there's now a bit of a battle going on in science as the JWT looked so far into space the Big bang theory is being dismantled. If that happens, masses of nerdy guys won't accept that.
Science doesn't know how anything could've been alive after the Earth was formed, the theory simply starts off with living organisms. While the big bang is also mysterious as to what caused absolutely nothing to even be sparked to begin with.
I mean, science does have an explination, but it would rather dwell on other things it cannot prove, like something coming from nothing which violates the various scientific laws that suggest something will never come of nothing.
With that, there are aspects about science that make it a religion for some people simply because they don't accept change when it's time for science to change it's stance on something.
There is no "something from nothing," just matter being arranged by deterministic physics.
In a universe with no beginning you'd be warmer, though physics doesn't just code functional DNA or manifest life out of thin air.
Richard Dawkins holy grail is Darwin's theory of evolution, while Darwin himself claimed to be a theist.
The theory of evolution in 2024 is still a theory. Since it's made famous by popular science, is considered factual to such a degree, it's used as a more plausible theory next to the big bang.
What's interesting is there's now a bit of a battle going on in science as the JWT looked so far into space the Big bang theory is being dismantled. If that happens, masses of nerdy guys won't accept that.
Science doesn't know how anything could've been alive after the Earth was formed, the theory simply starts off with living organisms. While the big bang is also mysterious as to what caused absolutely nothing to even be sparked to begin with.
I mean, science does have an explination, but it would rather dwell on other things it cannot prove, like something coming from nothing which violates the various scientific laws that suggest something will never come of nothing.
With that, there are aspects about science that make it a religion for some people simply because they don't accept change when it's time for science to change it's stance on something.
I think you're on the right track with this, although there's a difference between a hypothesis and theory. Colloquially, there is no difference, but there's a difference in the scientific definition. Most people think saying that an evolution theory is a theory means evolution theory is a hypothesis and therefore unproven. Its not. Evolution is a fact as far as science is concerned.
How life or Universe started, there are several hypotheses. Some people would say that because evolution theory is a proven fact that this then means every hypothesis any jack and Joe infers from evolution theory must also be a fact. This is not true, but it's a very common mistake. When people label the scientific creation story under the umbrella of evolution theory, they're trying to lump fact with potential fiction.
I agree there is a difference in what the scientific consensus is and what science enthusiasts or individual scientists try to popularize. There's a difference between what the scientific consensus is and what Richard Dawkins or Matt Dillahunty say is the scientific consensus. Many people don't get this difference.
last edit on
10/21/2024 2:28:20 PM
I don't trust everything popular science holds on a pedestal. That's not to say I can confirm what's true or not, I simply cannot, or rather I never took biology and conducted any experiments that would suggest evolution is true based on some microscopic organism transforming like a butterfly in the given time of my experimenting.
I do think the Earth is very-much/way older than 6000 or so years as the 17th century Archbishop James Ussher suggested.
I don't trust that we're to blame for the globe warming. That's some bullshit so we can pay carbon tax.
Last week we had aurora borealis in Toronto and some parts of the states, which has never happened in my lifetime. That was due to solar activity that came from the sun. According to science we've had 5 ice ages. Being on the 5th cycle now, scientific data suggests the Earth had warmer periods after the 4 previous ice ages.
Also this year, Australia had a freakin heatwave during their winter which lasts from June to August.
In 2002 it was widely reported that our Sun is getting hotter, but that was swept under the rug right about the time Al Gore was campaigning and suggesting carbon taxes.
Within the scientific field there is a kind of war for climate change. It's about will we accept carbon tax or will we be the problem. Other planets are warming too.
When it comes to evolution. Well. We are living in a world where there are forces trying to separate us from God. With that the best thing to do is to just leave an open book on the table, and just worry about what matters, and I don't think some old monkey bones with missing links will do us much good.
Here's an example of a lead scientific organization lying to the public.
And some pushback.
7
posts