Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9094 total)
9 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, dwise1, PaulK, Phat, Stile, Taq, Theodoric (8 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,534 Year: 12,646/6,534 Month: 2,139/1,988 Week: 260/460 Day: 22/91 Hour: 11/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   first genetic material
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 77 of 84 (508235)
05-11-2009 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2009 7:00 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
Something must have produced an excess of matter over anti-matter, because this excess exists.
But no-one knows for certain what. As a result, as invariably happens in such cases, scientists say: "We don't know. So let's try to figure it out"; and creationists say: "We don't know. Therefore we do know: it was caused by God doing magic to make the universe in an act of fiat creation 6000 years ago. Oh, and as a corollary all the things that scientists know for certain must be wrong."
You will notice that only one of these reactions is logical. You may also consider that, given scientists' track record of finding things out, and creationists' track record of being wrong about everything, the smart money would be on the scientists.
Wonderfully put, Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2009 7:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 78 of 84 (508236)
05-11-2009 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by dpeele
05-10-2009 11:51 PM


Re: Fortuitous happenstances
My thought in regards to the origin of the universe is the theories backs into unprovable assumptions.
No, It doesn't. It backs into ignorance.
That you think they are assumptions makes me think you believe that scientists treat cosmological theories as a matter of faith - so they are 'believing' things about which they have no information.
It doesn't work like that. These theories are just our best current understanding of how things are. Our current theories *will* change. They are used as a guide as to which problems to study, and a context into which to fit results and new theoretical developments. They not sacrosanct and a scientist does not have to 'believe' them. In fact we know they are incomplete, and in some areas very speculative and probably wrong.
Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by dpeele, posted 05-10-2009 11:51 PM dpeele has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022