Scientists SAY: this is an appeal to authority, and in terms of evidence means nothing. The opinions of scientists mean nothing without the backing of scientific evidence. When it comes to matter of faith, scientists have no advantage compared to the rest of us.
Evolutionary and Darwinism theory are nothing but appeals to authority. Man having evolved from lower species is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific opinion only, meaning in reality that the majority of scientists may hold that opinion. In these "modern times" people have elevated the opinion of scientists to the same level they once bestowed on Shamans...
If natural selection is not the best explanation for the data that exists on the history of life on this planet, then what is? Be specific, if you can.
The above statements demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of probability. If there is only one universe, then the probability of its having the cosmological constant as currently measured is 100%. Example. Put one green apple into a basket. Now close your eyes, reach in and pick out an apple. Anyone care to dispute that the probability of picking the one green apple is anything other than 100%? Now, take the reverse scenario. Put a trillion red apples and one green apple into a basket; close your eyes and reach in. If you draw the green apple, you should consider yourself pretty lucky. But, even under these conditions, as we are typing from that green apple of Earth, the probability of life is still 100%, because we're already here. The probability of an event which will never be repeated cannot be estimated after it has already occurred. Trying to assign some measure of statistics to the occurrence of life in this universe is meaningless.
Someone put the apple in the basket and so the probability is 1. Consider another example: Close your eye and reach out a basket. What is the probability of getting a green apple in that basket? Can you say the probability is 1? Don't confuse probability with conditional probability. jem was refering to the case when you don't know the fact. When the fact is given, the probability is alway 1.
yip: >When the fact is given, the probability is alway 1. Yes, and this fact is given -- we are here ... thus it is 1. JB
The sun revolving around the earth was the best explanation at the time because the majority of "scientists" agreed with that explanation... If the truth you seek is "the best explanation at the time" fine by me.
Your arguments are so weak and so easily refuted--I feel like Georgia in the Sugar Bowl! Medieval scientists were geocentric because of their confidence in the authority of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and the Bible, not because of the evidence. As scientific instruments were invented, more data about the solar system was found, and that data supported a heliocentric solar system. It was EVIDENCE that showed that the model was wrong. It has been well over a century since Darwin published his OTOOS, and yet evolution is much stronger now than then. Why? The evidence confirms it. You may choose not to believe it. Fine, go right ahead. 1/4 of Americans believe the earth is the center of the solar system. Scientific ignorance, indeed, is rather common.
Medieval scientists were geocentric because of their confidence in the authority of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and the Bible, not because of the evidence." No, actually scientists held a static point of view and watched the sun revolve around them. That was their direct evidence. ...and today's scientists are so confident because of __________. Well, you can fill in the blank if you like, it really doesn't matter, does it? Science isn't complete, yet people take the current fashion as some kind of Gospel. Newton was right...err, he was wrong, well he wasn't totally wrong, well...it was that his point of view was limited to the information of the day...Einstein was right, well, err, he was wrong, well he wasn't totally wrong..., errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr View a pencil with any degree of depth perception looking directly at the sharpened point, you see a cone. Look at the length of a pencil, you see a yellow cylinder. Look at the eraser and you see a round pink nipple. So which is the right point of view? It is impossible of course to view the pencil from all points of view at once. So the pencil looks like a cone, like a yellow line, like a round pink nipple, etc. So any thinking person (you can exclude yourself if you wish) would reasonably conclude that all the scientific knowledge is a function of the point of view they take. The point of view is always, I repeat, always....relativistic in nature. So you are satisfied with relativistic truths? Fine by me. Men of uncertainty who reject faith in a power greater than themselves seek the certainty just as much as anyone else. Good luck with your science...you are obviously so very, very scientifically intelligent. LMAO... Oh, you all caps is quite impressive. I can almost hear you yelling as you type. By the way evolution itself is no stronger today than it was in the beginning. There may be more opinions in favor of it, but opinions are not truths, which has been proven over, and over, and over again in science. It is also stronger because of now a full generation or two being indoctrinated into it fully. The only constant in all of this since the beginning has been the human mind, which is limited, fallible, and subjective. I continually ask the same question, and never get an answer: 1. What is the physical property of a thought? What is the atomic weight of a concept? What is the physical dimension of a negative number? It is really too funny watching the so called "scientists" dance around the salient issues, clutching at whatever make them feel they have their feet firmly on the ground. Again, I am sorry you are struggling so much with your faith, assuming you have any remaining.
and in the realms of inept unanswered questions a la zizzo one cld add: . what is the colour of a word? . what is sex of the universe? . what is the weight of nirvana? . how many morons does it take to divide pi? . how/what/when/where [A: anything really] {random verb} [any definitionally incompatible item to A, simply use your pocket dictionary] i mean, just off the top of my head but we shld all feel free to add... soooo many unanswered questions out there... kinda frightening innit? how about these ones zizzo? any ideas? . why does e(i*pi) + 1 = 0 ? . why is it that the moon seems so well designed to perfectly block the sun on total solar eclipses?