Should we believe what scientists say? (Page 51) MJ59: Pretty sure nobody ever said that humans evolved from apes or chimps... but maybe that's just me actually reading Darwin's work?   Campion: Humans and chimps are both apes. DNA evidence indicates that they diverged from a common ancestor about 6-8 million years ago.  Ravens Flight: One thing that always irks me is how people assume that if they don't believe in Darwin's evolution theory, then the only other option for them is to believe in biblical creation. I believe in neither. There are many other possibilities and theories out there, probably even possibilities that haven't yet been discovered/theorised, everyone always focuses on only those main two. Since I don't believe in either one, watching two people debate about which of them is real is like watching two people debate how much water it takes to start a fire. Most people just believe whatever they're told growing up as long as it's presented to them as fact, and if enough other people go along with believing it to make them feel like that theory must be the way it is. Very few people have actually delved deep into the actual details of the theories they believe and what actual evidence exists, doesn't exist, or maybe exists. And they're even less likely to have ever looked into the details of theories that contrast the one which they already swear by. That's the one thing you've gotta give credit to some of the people who believe in some of the more whacky sounding theories, like flat earthers... At least they are open minded, which is essential for any productive scientific advancement. Granted you don't want to go off the deep end and start believing in imaginary concepts or disregarding facts completely. Conversely, however, if all you're willing to learn is based on what you already know then you could miss out on some important unexpected discoveries. Lots of major scientific breakthroughs resulted from experiments that, at the time, had seemed far fetched or most people had mocked. It takes people who are willing to let their mind wonder outside of the constraints of the already-known to test the waters and put truely different, new concepts to logical, scientific tests, to really come up with big meaningful breakthroughs. zeffur: re: "Angry Beaver: Rather believe a scientist than a 2000 yr old book with "eyewitnesses"" There is no sound basis to believe in evolution. Their molecules-to -man & unproven creatures crawling out of the seas to gradually morph into modern creatures is so obviously absurd that the only reasonable response to such shite is to lol. The gospels are synopses (i.e. summaries) that were written by Christian believers who either knew the people written about or they got their details from other documents which were likely written in Aramaic. It doesn't make them any less valid than a modern printing of such documents on today's paper. They are a far better & more reliable resouce than the imaginary stories that are offered by evolutioners... (Edited by zeffur) zeffur: Miracles are a wonderous thing. You'll never know about them though due to your lack of fatih. AchillesSinatra: I'm going to post the following in order to demonstrate how even technically highly competent people (e.g. scientists) are often confused over fairly basic conceptual (i.e. philosophical) matters. Theoretical physicist Dennis Morris, on page 9 of his "The Special Theory of Relativity", writes the following: "We also believe that the physics of the universe was the same ten billion years ago as it is now and that it will be the same ten billion years into the future as it is now; we believe that kettles will boil at 100 degrees C in ten billion years time just as they do today. This does not mean that the universe was the same ten billion years ago as it is now; it means only that the universe works in the same way now as it did ten billion years ago. This is invariance under translation in time. Such translational invariance is a belief and not a fact; it might be that the speed of light was infinite at the start of the universe and has lessened since then; only observation can decide, and no one has been ten billion years into the future or ten billion light-years into space." The key phrase I want to focus on is "Translational invariance is a belief and not a fact". (Er, sound familiar, folks? Squawk!!!! ) Now, facts are by definition true; there are no untrue facts. Mr Morris, then, if read literally, is effectively telling us "Translational invariance is a belief (held by himself and his peers) and it is not true". Well, if it's not true, why on earth would you and your fellow physicists believe it, Mr Morris?  That said, Mr Morris is clearly a very intelligent man. All it would require, I assume, is a little prodding for him to see that he is conceptually at sixes and sevens. What he wants to say, presumably, is: "Translational invariance is a belief held by myself and my physicist peers; the factuality (i.e. truth) of this belief has not been demonstrated".  kittybobo34: I have heard physicists say that the fundamental laws were likely different in the first few moments of the big bang. zeffur: Me too... but given none of them were there to know for certain--we should consider their beliefs for what they truly are... AchillesSinatra: I'm told they get it wrong a lot. But you don't wanna hear that. Screw history. Just gimme Frank  | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
