zrook wrote:
Oh, ya'll know what's my only problem with scientists? that most scientists become "priests" of Science (capital S, since it becomes their own religion) and behave exactly like those whom they despise, even among themselves. Look, for example, at cold fusion: when it came out and was shortly after debunked, it became synonim with "junk science", and even if now there are tons of repeatible experiments, tons of evidence, tons of theories and studies.. but mainstream physicists refuse to even look at it, refuse to read, refuse to look outside.. they've became dogmatic.
The physicists in the original cold fusion experiments never offered a convincing explanation for results which were not consistently repeatable. ... Of course you're going to start ignoring people who sound like gibbering idiots. There's a difference between having an open mind and a hole in your head.
That said, what's your basis for this? If there's so much favorable, well documented evidence, it'll stand up to the peer review process. If you publish it, they will come. Scientists in general are conservative, yes. That's part of their job, not to propagate unsupported beliefs. But you can't label them dogmatic. If you can explain to a scientist why their model of the universe is wrong, or where it's assumptions don't hold and then propose an alternate model that works better, they'll accept the new idea.
On the other hand, if you <i>can't</i> justify your opinion, you're going to be mostly ignored unless your results are very, very, convincing.
Also, a fair bit of work <i>is</i> being done in related, better understood, fields. For example, with <a href="http://www-phys.llnl.gov/N_Div/sonolum/">sonoluminescence</a>.
Chaos_Descending wrote:
The theory goes "The random chances of evolution are so small that a higher force MUST have guided it." It very reasonable when you look at the random chance variables. Cause the idea of us spawning from nothing is pretty much nil. The only reason it isn't impossible is due to the seed theory. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if the mathematical chances reached 1 in a googleplex.
Really, I'd be amazed if there were a single fully justifiable position on the probability of the evolution of life. It's just too complex a system to reduce to one set of odds. Also, according to some theorists (who's odds I also distrust), the odds of life evolving on any given planet are quite high. (In galactic terms)
Chaos_Descending wrote:
Quote:
It could be as simple as saying "Holes in the evolution theory seems to give credence to the Creationist theory, but it is a losing battle."
I think I said that while it cannot be disproved right now, every day brings it closer to it's doom.
Creationism cannot be disproven. Ever.
First, it deals with events which cannot be observed (possibly events outside of causality), secondly, it is an ill-conditioned inverse problem, (Of all the possible ways this universe could have been formed, which one was it?) and third the problem is formulated as a negative.
Evolutionists are honest enough to admit that evolution is a theory, because it faces (some of) the same problems.
The difference between the two is that there is evidence for one and not the other. That's science.